< 10 August	12 August >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is to clearly keep (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ornate frog[edit]

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

Nobody would ever search under "Ornate frog" for any of the frogs listed on this disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. A valid disambig page, and the grok.se stats counter shows that it gets used. -- 101.117.2.126 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and the other frog DAB pages. No reason was given why "nobody would ever search" for this term. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid dab just like the other frog dab. Nomination based on a mere opinion. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legitimate disambiguation page. There are 47 hits in GoogleScholar for "ornate frog", most of which refer to either Hildebrandtia ornata (South Africa) or Microhyla ornata (India). As each of these frogs may be referred to as an "ornate frog" there is no issue under WP:Disambiguation#Partial title matches. --Bejnar (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser frog[edit]

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

Nobody would ever search under "Lesser frog" for any of the frogs listed on this disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep this and the other frog DAB pages. No reason was given why "nobody would ever search" for this term. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "I would never search under 'lesser frog'" doesn't mean "Nobody would ever search under "Lesser frog"".NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think again, people. Lesser here is an adjective modifying words than frog. If this were a page listing, say, "Smith's lesser frog, Johnson's lesser frog, forest lesser frog, swamp lesser frog", this would be a logical disambiguation page. But that's not what this is. This is a page listing "Lesser balloon frog, Lesser banana frog, Lesser Chini frog, Lesser spiny frog, Lesser swamp frog, Lesser swimming frog". It is completely illogical to group them together on a disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlike the members of the dab page "ornate frog", none of the above species are known as "lesser frogs". A search of GoogleScholar showed no (zero) frog species known as "lesser frogs", as did a more general search on Google. There is a lesser frog-eyed gecko which is not of interested here. Anomalocaris's point is well taken, this is not a likely search term, and none of the outcomes are so known. As a result of none of these being known as "lesser frogs", this would seem to fall under WP:Disambiguation#Partial title matches. --Bejnar (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bejnar that that the term "lesser frog" is not an obvious shortening of any of the common names of these animals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a WP:PTM violation, and http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Lesser%20frog indicates it's not a search term. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful frog. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Blimp Crash[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. The only source provided doesn't seem to exist, nor does the publisher (no Ghits for "Malus Publishers"). I couldn't find any other sources through Google to corroborate this event ever happening, hence--Delete. Jinkinson talk to me 23:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. A google search found this, a NYT report on a non-fatal 1993 incident: an incident with fatalities would doubtless have shown up.TheLongTone (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Mutton (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a mayor of a midsized town; although the population (85K) is large enough to put the town in the population range where we consider mayors to potentially be notable enough, the real problem here is the quality of sourcing: as written, the article relies almost entirely on primary sources and local community media that aren't widely distributed enough to count as evidence of encyclopedic notability — and the only source that really passes muster here, the Toronto Star, is simply giving routine coverage of municipal election campaigns in the Greater Toronto Area, mentioning Mutton's name only in passing and thus failing to constitute substantive coverage of him. With the result being that the sourcing isn't good enough to get him past WP:NPOL's cutoff for the inclusion or exclusion of mayors in cities of this size under contemporary standards. Thus, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a case where we could really do with the old Google News Archive search - the two replacements produce nothing, but the first few pages of a full Google search supply several hits from Toronto regional newspapers (and not just about a dropped domestic violence case that we would probably want to ignore) and make it look as if a thorough search (perhaps on Highbeam or in a Canada-specific archive) would turn up more. PWilkinson (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too small to give mayor notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Highbeam provided two passing references, but neither quite reaching signficant coverage. The longer of the two reads: To express support of the community for the Canadian host site, the Canadian Delegation included John Mutton, the Mayor of the Municipality of Clarington and Roger Anderson, Chair of the Region of Durham. Mayor Mutton emphasized the excellent technical and socio-cultural characteristics of the Canadian site and the enthusiasm of the local community to host ITER. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 15:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Shah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a homeopath. Most of the cited sources appear to be primary sources and trivial listing of papers that he has written. There is no evidence that his research has been cited in respected medical journals. Fails WP:NACADEMICS. I am also unable to find any sources with biographical coverage of the subject, so it also appears to fail WP:BASIC. - Mr X 23:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because of WP:NPOV, and because homoeopathy is transparently nonsense, WP:NFRINGE requires mainstream sourcing specific which this lacks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence of meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines. A doctor working in conventional medicine wouldn't meet the guidelines based on having published a few papers, and a flair for self-publicity isn't grounds for inclusion either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Puff piece about a fringe figure with no significant mention in reliable sources. Trivial mention at best, and most sources do not come even close to meeting our reliability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, diluted, homeopathic keep. He is the subject of one long article in The Economic Times and a couple of paragraphs in another in a subsidiary publication of The Indian Express, suggesting there's probably more media coverage in India. I hate to say it, but that just barely clears WP:GNG for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an odd situation where there are a lot of sources for a WP:BLP, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that the person in question passes WP:BIO. To wit, here are the things we should look at for general biographic notability: 1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Neither of those criteria are satisfied. The next thing we could look at is WP:PROF which covers medical professionals generally (I note that most doctors are not notable enough for an article). The relevant criteria would be that "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I just don't see evidence that this is the case. Shah is profiled as an example of a homeopath, but just because a doctor is profiled doesn't make them notable. I would further note that WP:FRINGEBLP warns us that we need to look carefully at sources due to the promotional nature of many fringe proponents. This area suffers from such in particular. On the balance, then, I say, default to delete. jps (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are of poor quality, subject does not seem to be particularly noteworthy even within the fringe subject of Homoeopathy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon B. Gray[edit]

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

Article which displays tenuous notability. Asserts WP:BIO which if fails. An athletics director. Author(s) have a list of 11 other AD's to create of which one Bill Maher has been created. scope_creep 23:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Keep - Most Division I athletic directors in the modern era are going to receive sufficient in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The AD position has become high-profile in college sports, and they are often interviewed and often profiled. There were three linked footnotes in this article; one is now a dead link, so I can't evaluate it. Both of the remaining sources are pretty solid, but one is a trade publication and so I discount its value for determining notability. If the creator of this article wants to save it, go find another couple solid articles about the subject in mainstream publications. If he's truly notable, it should not be hard to do. If you cannot find another two mainstream articles about the subject in the next seven days, I may change this !vote to a "delete."

Now, a separate note about the rest of the succession of AD names listed in the related navbox . . . older ADs are less likely to be notable per GNG because the amount of coverage the AD position attracts is a relatively modern phenomenon, especially at smaller mid-major programs like Niagara. If you cannot find enough in-depth coverage in mainstream publications to sustain a GNG-based AfD evaluation, don't spend a lot of time creating stubs to fill out your navbox succession. Create a table within your main sports program article that lists all of the program's ADs, and link the older, less notable/non-notable ADs shown in the navbox to the table of ADs in the main sports program article. Problem solved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as coverage, how about this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this. A 20-second Google search is all it took. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first article from the Buffalo News is okay but not great, but the rest of the linked articles are all WP:ROUTINE hiring announcements clearly based on the same SID press release. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the previous administration discontinuing the women's hockey program (here) was in the Niagara SID press release? Wow. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that one background sentence added by the staff writer have to do with Simon Gray's notability? Please think critically. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An NCAA Division I athletic director is an easy keep. Total failure of any WP:BEFORE by the nom, as there is obviously plenty of coverage to pass WP:GNG here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EJ, as of now, there is not "obviously plenty of coverage to pass WP:GNG," but there should be. So far, we have two reasonably in-depth articles about his hiring from the Niagara Gazette and the Buffalo News, and that's subject to WP:BLP1E; everything else linked above is a WP:ROUTINE hiring announcement of the lowest order, all clearly derived from the same press release. You're going to have to work a little harder. Please review and consider my comments above. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and that applies the mid-major Division I athletic directors who have to satisfy the general notability guidelines. This is not a 1920s football player; the coverage should be there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20 more seconds on Google yields more here, here, here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, BTW, not that it matters, but I didn't create this article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not one of yours, EJ; the first thing I always do is check history to see who the creator was. The burden is on those who want to keep the article to produce multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy GNG. The first article linked above is pretty good; the other two are two more WP:ROUTINE hiring announcements, and 100 of those still contribute very little to the subject's notability. GNG is about the quality and depth of coverage, not the quantity of random ROUTINE mentions. I would still like to see at least one significant article about the subject that does not involve him leaving EKU for Niagara, but the linked Buffalo News, Niagara Gazette and Washington Times arguably are sufficient. They ought to be added to the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another TBN piece on Gray. And here's a curiosity article featuring him during his time at Eastern Kentucky! Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first linked article adds a little, the second one from The Washington Post is a trivial mention and adds nothing. With regard to the first one from the Buffalo News, please remember that multiple articles from the same publication count as a single source for notability purposes. BTW, I'm really not trying to beat you up over this -- I'm just trying to get sufficient coverage from reliable sources that we can walk away from this article and use it as an illustration of what an AD needs to pass GNG. Like I said below, we're probably already there with the Buffalo News, Niagara Gazette and Washington Times. But I really urge you to be more critical when sourcing our sports-related articles, and when evaluating the notability of subjects in AfD. Weakly sourced stubs don't do much for our readers, nor do perma-stubs for non-notable subjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gray is an athletic director who has been on the job at Niagara for just over three months. Other than hiring announcements, exactly what media coverage do you expect him to accrue in such an extremely short period of time? As far as his time at Eastern Kentucky, I'm not even sure exactly how long he was the AD there (some of the sources make it sound like he may have been the interim AD), or what local, small-time, Podunk County Times-type newspaper even covers EKU athletics where one would have to look in to try to find information about his time there? Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EJ, you're missing the key point. ADs are not inherently notable; they must satisfy the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. The coverage is either there or it's not. In addition to being on the job for three months at Niagara, Simon Gray was previously the acting AD at EKU for about a year. Sufficient coverage should be there, but AfD requires a demonstration that the coverage is there, not an assumption that it exists. As I said already, of all the links you produced, three of them are pretty good. Let's get them and some sourced text added to this article and move on. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure if every NCAA Division I athletic director for the past 100 years passes WP:GNG, but we don't have to decide that. This one, in particular, passes GNG per the coverage linked above by Ejgreen77. Cbl62 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cbl, the articles linked by EJ really don't. All but one article linked by EJ is WP:ROUTINE based on a single press release; hell, you can track the same language from announcement to announcement. One paragraph hiring announcements are not "significant" coverage. At best, it's a single marginal source. Moreover, the announcement coverage is subject to WP:BLP1E. If you want to keep this article, someone needs to do more work than this. Good coverage should be there for a modern-era AD, but let's not assume that, let's produce it. That's one of the purposes AfDs serve. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We now have three pretty good sources from the Buffalo News, Niagara Gazette and Washington Times, so I'm not going to argue the point much further. But, Cbl, an experienced Wikipedian and admin like you should not be defending WP:ROUTINE and other trivial mentions as significant coverage. You know better than that. As I said above, this is not some 1920s football player, where we have to dig for lesser sources to sustain a presumption of notability per one of the SNGs. This guy is modern era, and significant coverage should be demanded without apology, produced, and added to the article to demonstrate the subject's notability per the general guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the items found by EJ were routine. They look pretty good to me. In the end, we both agree on this one. Cbl62 (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in every research project I've been involved in with 4-year college athletic directors, we always find enough sources to dramatically exceed WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure). Jinkinson talk to me 23:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HouseQuake[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Not really any coverage in reliable sources, and even if it had coverage, it should be merged into Rahm Emanuel. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, there is some coverage in reliable sources [1] but not enough to support an independent article. Keep per plethora of sources identified by MichaelQSchmidt below. Jinkinson talk to me 23:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Question: Why suggest a merge to Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel when there so many other persons as subjects covered within and part of documentary? Either it has enough coverage to meet WP:NF or it does not. Let's just look and see. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep per easily meeting WP:NF. I do not know how the nominator did not find this coverage, but WP:GNG is met per National Journal, Washington Post, News & Observer, Huffington Post, Variety, New York Times and many others. I hope this lack of due diligence was not intentional? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Withdraw, as didn't realize the notability for the films criteria. Grognard 123chess456 (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete. Although I agree with some of the "keep" !votes that the subject is potentially notable, there is currently not enough material for a stand-alone list. The single current entry can easily be merged into Japanese bondage. In addition, I agree with AdventurousMe that the subject of a list would need to be defined clearer. In all, I find Sandstein's argument most compelling. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese bondage models[edit]

Please note historical version of article, here.[2] - Wikidemon (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another poorly-sourced, poorly-defined list that needs to die. Declined PROD. p b p 22:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sadly no evidence of notability, If anyone DOES improve & source this I'll probably change to keep –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication that this represents a distinctive field or that these models specialize in it, or that there are enough notable ones to justify a list. The list's intro links to Japanese bondage in an attempt to provide some focus, but neither included model's article does more than mention in passing that some of their work was in bondage themed porn. postdlf (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to List of bondage models by decade. Nationality doesn't seem to matter. There is a page for Japanese bondage so perhaps its different than regular bondage. I don't know, care, or have any plans on reading into that though. Dream Focus 01:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are more than two names on the list, and Japanese bondage is a distinct thing different than regular bondage, as it seems to be, then its a legitimate list page to have. Dream Focus 23:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason for deletion. If you want sources, add them yourself. Just google "actress name" + bondage and you will find video sources. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reliable... p b p 20:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:Reliable. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)PBP, any (commercially distributed) videos are reliable sources for their own content and credits... But let's not get distracted as the sourcing isn't really the relevant deletion problem here, which just makes this keep !vote moot. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevant deletion problem? NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky for you, I've already posted a comment explaining it. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why people comment on topics that they apparently do not understand or have any interest in learning about. Nevertheless here is the article to establish 'relevance': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawashi NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing in that article establishes that this kind of modeling constitutes a distinct specialization or subindustry or that there are enough notable models in such a specialization to justify a standalone list. Which is what my delete !vote above stated. Nawashi doesn't even make a case for its own notability (and should probably be merged to Japanese bondage), and what few blue links the article has are, with two exceptions, to disambiguation pages or other unrelated articles. To paraphrase, I don't know why people pretend that they've made a response to an earlier comment when they haven't done anything to actually address the substance of that comment. postdlf (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no substance. It represents a distinctive field. The models specialize in it and there are several notable actresses. As I already said, as someone who neither shows willingness to learn or any interest in this topic you are not in the position to judge about such things anyway. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Japanese bondage is a notable thing. Being a fetish model (where bondage model redirects) is a notable thing as well. Note that it is not a random intersection: there is no (say) Irish bondage as a separate topic, while Japanese bondage is. List entries can be sourced. No policy-based reason whatsoever in the deletion rationale. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the names that have been included on the list were not categorized as bondage models or described as such with reliable sourcing. There is no parallel category. There is no reliably sourced case made that this specialty exists within the Japanese erotica industry, and no reason to impose Western standards on a non-Western culture. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That there is no parallel category is irrelevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
There are reliable sources speaking of Japanese bondage models as a specialty, e.g. [3]. Probably more can be found in Japanese-language sources, I guess.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and impose a zero tolerance for BLP viiolations policy on this page. Seems notable enough as a subject albeit only one person on the list♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note related AFD pending at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bondage models by decade. postdlf (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence — clearly a notable topic. List format may be useful. However, this list was always sparsely populated and has lately been pruned to a single entry. There is are two deeper problems with this particular list, though. First, reliable sources are very hard to verify because: (1) most sources are not in English, (2) most searches for sources will find lots of SPAM because of the nature of SEO for porn, and (3) even though a video work's title credits are generally considered reliable sources for the performers appearing in them, this would be extremely tedious and hard to verify on a list like this, or even in a performer's own bio. I haven't checked the latest on BLP interpretations of film credits, but practically, it would be very hard to build a well-checked list of bondage models by looking at film credits even if this is sufficient. To save the most important for last, per some of the comments @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: made when pruning list items, even in the articles about their careers these models were not sourced as bondage models per se, but rather performers who have appeared in bondage productions. Whereas specializing as a bondage model may well be a notable piece of Japanese popular culture, having appeared in a bondage production is not really a useful inclusion criterion and tends to make the list trivial and prurient. If by the end of this AfD nobody has proposed a viable way to build out this list that is reasonably inclusive and sourced, I would agree to delete in favor of a category, or nothing without prejudice to later re-creation — not because it can't be sourced or the subject is non-notable, but because there is not enough here, and likely there won't ever be enough here to have a list article of even minimal quality. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is only one reliably sourceable entry, then there is just no case for a separate list article, which would look ridiculous to any reader in this state. Include any such list in the parent article until there are enough entries for a spin-off list per WP:SS. Sandstein 11:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikidemon , but why they should be reluctant about it escapes me. A bondage model is one who appears predominantly ot notably or characteriscally in those rules, and a specific source for the term as applying to the person is not necessary. I don;t know what makes a list like this prurient in a negative , whether selective or inclusive--the topic is one formal of sexualized display, and WP is not censored. If people find some of the content exciting, it is generally because the find the corresponding parts of the RW exciting. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you aware of our WP:BLP policy, DGG, which absolutely does demand reliable sources for an article such as this, especially given that being a bondage model is a highly contentious form of employment. And the gulf between censorship and enforcing our BLP policy is so huge that I am amazed you could confuse the two, and not sure why you want to bring up the censorship argument, other of course than to try to allow wikipedia and its editors to evade their BLP responsibilities with a censorship red hering argument. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Exactly as i implied, you are using your interpretation of BLP policy as an excuse for removing sexually related material. I call that censorship. I recognize that those who wish to censor usually try to avoid using the word. If harm is being done to a specific person who does not belogn on the list, the item can be removed. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. At this time, the list has only one entry and it lacks source. And anyway, this is a WP:BLP list and sources in it must be stringently enforced. BLP is a sensitive field in which reverting the addition of unreferenced info is an exception to the notorious 3RR policy. Show no mercy. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein and nom. If the one source piece of info is so vital it should be added to Japanese bondage. I'd also note that there's a difference between women who model in Japanese bondage and bondage models who happen to be Japanese, so the list is poorly defined as well as being under-populated and poorly sourced. AdventurousMe (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suppose in theory this could be a reliably sourced list, but the sole entry at the present time is a BLP and it is not supported by a source. Once that is removed, there's nothing left to save. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
'delete a list with one entry is a nonsense and if properly sourcing entries is a blp problem then I can't see the point of this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paton Ashbrook[edit]

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

Unreferenced except for IMDB, which I'm assuming it was written from, I could find no sign that the listed films or this actress have ever received reliable third-party coverage. There is a trailer on YouTube, so if it's a hoax, somebody went to some effort. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NACTOR or GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have ever had a notable role in any notable film. In fact, it is not clear any film she has appeared in has been notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Highways (album)[edit]

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

Article of unclear notability with no reliable sources. Unencyclopedic content and a blatant WP:ADVERTISEMENT. Wikicology (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources in both the article now and elsewhere. Rolling Stone, for example, is clearly a reliable source, which totally undermines the nom's claim that no such sources could be found in this article. Here are some more just in case: [4] [5] [6] Jinkinson talk to me 21:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per lengthy Rolling Stone ref that was in the article before it was nommed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of sources.--SportsMaster (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog where anything goes. Been mention in one or two sources does not make a subject a wikipedia article or an encyclopedic article. I wondered how a music album that has not been released would be notable enough to be the subject of a wikipedia article. The most paramout essence of an encyclopedia is the significance of the encyclopedic subject. Wikicology (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:HAMMER, GNG. Terrible nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Upcoming album by a well known band. The significance here is clear. Additionally, the content appears to be cited. Due to this album being by a hugely popular band, this article will definitely be expanded as more information becomes available--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's third-party sources already available for the album, with a few of them already being cited in the article. Not to mention, the track list has already been revealed. Whether or not an album has been released does not indicate notability in of itself. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Exo (band)#discography. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overdose (Exo song)[edit]

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

Violates WP:NMUSIC as non-notable. TheQ Editor (Talk) 21:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Exo (band)#discography as non-notable song lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 12:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Exo (band)#discography per Philg88, fails to have independent coverage, fails WP:NSONG. --Bejnar (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the person has not, so far, received the third-party coverage in reliable sources needed to establish notability. Deor (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Page McBee[edit]

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

Think it fails WP:BIO Can't see notability. scope_creep talk 21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the talk page comment, "prolific, award-winning author with a book coming out". This is a high profile writer and editor that apparently doesn't have their own publicist. The breadth of the speaking engagements and writings alone should be plenty. Third-party reviews of he book will start to roll out if they haven't already (I don't know when the book is to be released, reviews usually hit a month before or so.) - Masioka
Comment Fixed afd format for Masioka. scope_creep talk 18:06 14
Delete I see no reliable third-party sources. The NY Times link is to an article of his own, which is not 3rd party. The article cites his own web site multiple times - not third party. The Salon link is also an article by McBee, not about him. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at this point; maybe after the book comes out he might get a little more notice. But for now, all I can find is self-referential sources, such as columns he wrote; I'm not finding significant coverage ABOUT him. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the assessment that there WP:RS just aren't there. The content used is not about him; we can't legitimately base a WP:BLP on that. No prejudice to recreation if notability can be established after the release of his book, but the claim above that notability will definitely be established then is crystal-balling. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Osumanu[edit]

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

He's a bright young student, but not notable. Has won a "Noble prize for economics", so minor that it isn't mentioned in the article on the awarding body, Erasmus Mundus. There may be potential for an article in a few years when he has some non-student achievements. PamD 20:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the 3 references about his "Noble prize" and the inline citation all have identical text, including odd language (see para starting "Mr Osumanu interacting with corporate bodies after the award ceremony,", and at least one typo ("knowledge which does not only stern from his field of studies" - unless "stern" is a usage with which I'm unfamiliar - a couple of lines above that para). The four include a blog, and a Wordpress document. Has one press release been widely used? I can find no evidence of the existence of this prize other than in these sources. PamD 21:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no credible assertion of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a young guy who's won a pretty nice scholarship/fellowship, but is blowing his own horn much too hard about it. I declined an A7 speedy because the "award" announcement was (re)posted by his alma mater. a reputable university. giving a veneer of credibility to the claim, but if I'd dug further I'd probably have AFD'd this myself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional piece. What's with the bolding?! and fails WP:GNG. At best WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Past consensus here is that student awards don't generally count for academic notability, and those are the only claims of significance in the article. Even if we argue that the modernghana.com piece gives him notability per WP:GNG, it's only one source (the other sources listed in the article don't seem to be reliable) and doesn't pass WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Subject of this article is only known for WP:ONEEVENT. He has not received significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand alone article. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Orangemike per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Eliasch[edit]

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

Reads like a biography page in a fashion magazine, on whose context and content displays particularly weak notability. Asserts WP:BIO and fails and so fails WP:GNG. Also uses bare URLS which will never get fixed. scope_creep talk 20:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Promo bollox that belongs anywhere but here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment - Wasn't aware that bare URLS were a deletable offence. But what I am seeing are sources in The Independent, The Times, The Sunday Times. That's several acceptable sources right there, and a glance shows they're articles about her. Yes, the page is a mess, but the article needs improvement. I think we're being a bit harsh to the new editor whose first article this is - he's obviously tried very hard to do it properly with sourcing, supporting cites, etc, and actually, I think the subject has sufficient notoriety and coverage to qualify for an article on her. Now if it's OK with anyone else, I'm going to welcome him to Wikipedia. Mabalu (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)""[reply]

Comment It's a beautiful article, well written and worthy of it's editor However, it is the worst kind of article, which subverts the Spirit and Letter of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a business directory nor a fashion catalogue, nor a fashion magazine, and this article makes WP into a promo platform. She is simply not notable, in my opinion. scope_creep talk 15:16 14 August 2014 (UTC)
CommentI think it is a case of cyber bullying. There are so many lesser people on Wikipedia. Eliasch has achieved a lot. I am surprised at all your unpleasantness when the guide lines are that you should be positive and correct. There has been little productive help. Wikipedia needs all different sorts of people, not just bird watchers and politicians. I will stick up for someone I believe in. If there needs to be some corrections I understand. The rest is drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AERATBAG (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)KEEP THIS ARTICLE. This was my first article and would be grateful for support. It has credible URLS, from The Times, the woman is of note, She has won many prizes for her work with poetry and film, and is more of interest that many included in wikipedia. I am surprised by the rude commentsAERATBAG (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)AERATBAG[reply]
Comment Fixed incorrect Afd entry and formatting by AERATBAG. scope_creep talk 15:18 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop being nasty to my dear friend please. We can't all be internet geniuses, but this woman's achievements are considerable and deeply worthy of consideration. What she is too modest to mention on here is all the work she does as an arts philanthropist making things happen which otherwise simply would not. Be nice, give Amanda Eliasch a break. On balance she makes the world a better place. Can you honestly say that you do the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petecater (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Eliasch is a massively successful talent. How anyone criticizes her achievements is beyond me. The Internet trolls these days have far too much power to hurt people... and aside from that, don’t they have anything better to do than to attack people who actually do something with their lives. Oh well. Onwards and upwards Ms. Eliasch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.122.19 (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited the pages, which some of you critical people out there could have done too? Why not check Eliasch out before exerting your meanness, it is easy, she has done much more than most. I have read the rules of Wikipedia and it says that you should all be helpful and polite. Some of you were incredibly unhelpful. It is lucky your pages are not under construction. It is a very difficult job to do new pages so it would have been better if you had helped, and Wikipedia relies on a balanced approach. Anyway I feel the page is much more appropriate now. Perhaps give it and me a chance, or indeed help constructively. Life is more interesting with characters in it. Correct and helpful behaviour is much more interesting. Incidentally this page was up for about 6 years and nobody did anything with it.. then …. a rat came out of its box….

AERATBAG — Preceding unsigned comment added by AERATBAG (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has undergone a deletion by administrator User:Orangemike. Reason is: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Please Close this discussion. scope_creep talk 20:23 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rakow[edit]

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

Article which had been reviewed by Articles for creation and has been rejected at this time. Clearly fails WP:BIO scope_creep 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Self-publishing articles for a limited audience requires a bit more in the way of notability evidence given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I see nothing in this article to make the subject notable: yet another NN pastor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article shows ONE item of significant coverage, from Minnesota Public Radio, but GNG requires MULTIPLE such sources and I'm not finding that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Scowsill[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this person meets WP:BIO. None of the sources cited discuss the subject in depth and it reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. The 'further reading' section lists two interviews with him, but these are about the travel industry in general rather than about him. SmartSE (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another in what amount to an over abundance of promotional articles about living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Ny Times (cite #2) article is about the industry he works in but only mentions him. All of the HighBeam articles are behind a paywall and none appear to be about him, specifically. The Washington Times article seems to have no mention of him at all. LaMona (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', non-notable person. No coverage about him found; the references given seem to be almost random. I suppose the article could be redirected to World Travel and Tourism Council, of which he is president and CEO. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March Communications[edit]

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

Asserts WP:ORG and fails and subsequently fails WP:GNG Utterly non notable PR firm. Also another org which reads like an advertising page, which it's own brand. scope_creep talk 20:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only see one independent ref really covering the company. Most of the rest appear to be press releases. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP; as noted above, most of the "references" are press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, most of the citations are to sources that are decried at WP:CORPDEPTH. At the 46th Annual Bell Ringer Awards they received one "Silver bell" and an honorable mention. Lacks in depth coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blue Screen of Death. Sandstein 11:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BSoD[edit]

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

Delete because:

It is a two-entry dab page. Per WP:TWODABS, it is best replaced with hatnote-based disambiguation. Blue Screen of Death is clearly the primary topic.
Black Screen of Death does not fit the bill for inclusion in a dab page named "BSoD" because its lead only lists "KSoD" or "BlSoD" as alternative titles.

Actually, I could have converted this to a redirect myself but a BSoD (disambiguation) page redirects to it. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blue Screen of Death is the only entry which is not a partial match, and we do not list partial matches on disambiguation pages. BSoD should redirect to only valid entry, and BSoD (disambiguation) can then be speedy deleted under G8 of redirects criteria. Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TWODABS page with a clear primary topic. bd2412 T 14:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Blue Screen of Death which is clearly the primary topic; the other smacks of WP:OR, but that is not this discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi. I just reverted a good-faith non-admin closure by MrScorch6200 because it falls within inappropriate closures: "The result will require action by an administrator". As I said at the top, "I could have converted this to a redirect myself but a BSoD (disambiguation) page redirects to it." Dispatching this redirect needs an admin action. In fact, that is only reason I started this topic. Normally, BADNACs should be sent to deletion review, but in this case I believe WP:SNOW applies: It simply isn't fair to make me go through three deletion discussions when one should suffice.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I apologize for the inappropriate closure and would've re-opened it anyway. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff's Amusement Park[edit]

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

Finishing nomination for User:Kolbybotka, who has placed his concerns on Talk:Cliff's Amusement Park. I personally have no opinion. Ansh666 18:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but I think that the references demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Eastmain; the sources in the article demonstrate notability, and POV issues would be a matter of editing, not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The others are correct. Sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. While Ansh was kind, starting an AfD just because another editor wrote in prose "it should not be on Wikipedia" is not reason to start an AfD. Kolbybotka is an established editor and can start an AfD themselves if they wanted to. --Oakshade (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Eastmain and Pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue raised by the nominator was that it was an un-referenced BLP. That's now been satisfied and there are no !votes to delete. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J-Swift[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Laun chba ller 22:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources can easily be found, just a matter of doing it, a fairly notable music producer, worth keeping as an article until it can be improved. JesseRafe (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm pretty sure that sources can be found to satisfy WP:GNG through his production work, though I haven't tried at this point. But, he was also the subject of the documentary film 1 More Hit, receiving some coverage (e.g. [7],[8]). In a sort of roundabout way, I think that meets WP:MUSICBIO#12. — sparklism ^hey! 11:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one of those sources to the article, so it's no longer a BLP violation. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 11:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Wani[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Laun chba ller 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added a citation for his AAAS Fellow designation, which I believe passes WP:PROF#C3. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The citation record seems marginal to me in what is I think a high-citation field, but the AAAS Fellow should be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete via WP:G5. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Ross (character)[edit]

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

Nothing to support breaking the movie character out into a separate article. The minimal information in the article could be merged into the main movie article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge • As nominator suggested, this article can be merged with The Expendables (film series). CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With notability being the issue, opinions are roughly divided numerically, but several later opinions have mentioned new sources that earlier "delete" opinions couldn't have considered, and it appears that the discussion trends towards a "keep" outcome. At the least I can't find a consensus to delete here. Elaqueate has convincingly argued why any deletion request by the subject should not be given special weight here. Sandstein 17:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Frank[edit]

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

The subject does not meet notability criteria (though there may be confusion with a person of the same name). Though the subject's company is mentioned as being well-known, there is no real assertion of the subject's importance, so this may meet speedy deletion criteria. The article has been tagged as non-notable for a long time. Boson (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, although he has an Emmy (see TP :). --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's easy to neglect middlemen; yet somehow these middlemen have determined what is available to the culture at large. We should license ourselves to understand the world as more than merely consumer units. I have found a few sources like a mention in [9] that make it clear he had some meaningful historical role. Wnt (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My quick look suggests he probably is quite notable, however the article needs serious improvement (I see it is already improving since it was brought to the attention of Jimbo's talk page stalkers), and didn't have sufficient reference to establish notability included in the article. I suspect the issues with the article should be straightened out in a day or two, but if they aren't we may want to consider deleting it until someone is willing to put together a proper article in light of it being a BLP. I'll try to remember to come back and !vote in a couple days. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet GNG. Concerned by TP accusations that Mr. Frank's representatives have been removing content from the article-- would notability be more apparent were we !voting on an article that had not been previously sanitized by editors with a CoI? betafive 05:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jesus Christ, of course the article should be deleted. First of all, the article does not even come close to meeting our standards as described at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Is there one single article about the person -- I mean about the person -- in any reasonable notable publication? There isn't.

Second of all, it's a poorly referenced WP:BLP. There are whole sections with no referencing whatsoever. These have to go. You're going to be left with a few sentences.

Third of all, suppose he did meet our notability requirements (which, again, he doesn't) he would meet them only marginally, in which case WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE comes into play (assuming that this request from a person claiming agency is on the level, which I do assume).

Fourth of all, here's one of the few reasonably reliable sources, the Entertainment section of the New York Daily News. It's used to ref the bare fact that Frank was the producer of Name That Tune, but the article title is "'Name That Tune' producer Sandy Frank sues to get engagement ring back from ex-fiancée" and the entire article is about this. No, you can't do that. If you want to make the case that EngagementRingGate is a notable event worthy of being included in this article, you can try to make that case provided you can show multiple notable and highly reliable sources (required for inflammatory material in a BLP). Absent that, no, you can't ref a anodyne fact to a source detailing inflammatory material. It's probably not done intentionally but it's too cute by half and won't stand. It won't stand at the BLP Noticeboard and let's not argue about this. We don't do this. We are better than that.

So cut out that ref. Cut out the Broadcasting ref which is to an advertisement. Cut out Horror View which I'm not sure who they are but 1) they ain't the New York Times and 2) this is a 'WP:BLP under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE so we want very highly reliable and pretty notable sources so I doubt they qualify. Cut the YouTube video (!) used as a source which is a primary source, any other issues with it being a YouTube video aside. That leaves the International Journal of Culture Studies which is used to ref the statement "The Sandy Frank dubs are considered an early part of the heritage of animated films from Japan that eventually led to the anime boom of the 2000s". I don't know what the International Journal of Culture Studies is but we've been here 10+ years and nobody's seen them as notable enough to rate an article (unlike the International Journal of Motorcycle Studies and so forth). The ref is not online and I'd like see a demonstration that that's a proper interpretation of the source. But suppose you keep that anyway, you have one ref that presumably mentions the person in passing (if that). No article, not for any BLP and especially not for a marginal person (actually not even that) who'd requested deletion of the article.

Not really interested in the vote count here. Unless somebody can come with a whole lot better arguments for keeping the article, the person closing this has got to delete it. There's really no choice here. Herostratus (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE isn't a deletion argument. It allows a closing admin discretion in the no-consensus case about a non-public figure. Since Sandy Frank is a public figure, albeit a minor one, it doesn't apply in this circumstance. Per http://ics.sagepub.com/, the "International Journal of Culture Studies" would appear to be a stable, if niche, scholarly publication.—Kww(talk) 01:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah OK, it's hard to keep up with the details of all the rules. I think you're supposed to sprinkle some WP:OFFICIALLOOKINGLINKS in your text to play in this league though. For WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE just substitute "guy doesn't want the article" which is the same point in civilian talk. Herostratus (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Herostratus. Doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't care much if this article is kept or deleted. What I do care about is that Sandy Frank's opinion on the topic isn't taken into account. None of our policies and guidelines about requested deletions apply in this case.—Kww(talk) 01:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we all hear you loud and clear. There's a bigger world out there though. You never cease to be moral player on this planet, not for one second, and sitting at a keyboard does not remove you from the moral universe, nor does appealing to some policies and guidelines regardless of who issued them. Of course we don't remove articles about people who are truly notable, because that would do too much violence to our encyclopedic mission. Which is an important mission. It's important, but it's not everything or the only thing in this world. Being nice is also pretty important. If these two things are in tension we have to figure out the completing claims on us. Well, when we have a subject who is 1) alive, and 2) only marginally notable, and 3) doesn't want an article, we should listen and listen carefully. I can't make you do that but you can't stop me from doing it, and you can't stop other people from doing it either. Herostratus (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not feeling a moral duty here. This is not some obscure nobody; probably millions of people have at some point or another paid actual money (directly or indirectly) to view pieces of film that have his name written on them, that were edited by his decision making. You're telling me that he has a right to affect all those people, but that they have no right to know about him -- that what is in their minds pertaining to him is essentially his property, to shape and fix the way he wants. I do not accept that. And I think it is morally bankrupt, morally ridiculous, for us to have articles on a whole range of different people, that contain inconvenient facts, solely because they haven't yet come and asked us to take them down. What kind of message does that send? By comparison to this, I have much more respect in my heart for the people who vandalize Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no moral duty to not have a biography of Sandy Frank, nor is there a moral duty to listen to his protestations about it.—Kww(talk) 03:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do have a duty to listen to the subject; indeed, there were a few BLP type issues that some would say we have a duty to act on; but not a duty to delete the relevant information. Our duty as Wikipedians is to help people understand what his company did with these shows, how it affected what people saw, and how it figured into economy and culture. I don't know if we're going to do that duty any time soon but deleting it is the wrong direction. Wnt (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected for indulging in hyperbole. We do, indeed, have an obligation to listen. When it's nothing more coherent than "I DON'T LIKE IT. MAKE IT GO AWAY", we have an obligation to ignore it.—Kww(talk) 04:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yeah, OK, I understand now we're you're coming from. Perhaps I also engaged in hyperbole. It's just when that I run into the argument "Editing the Wikipedia suspends the editor's participation in the moral universe for the duration of her editing session", which you do see, it frosts me. You're not making that argument as I now see and apologies for jumping to that conclusion.

Based on your statement above I do think you maybe have an aversion to people wanting to remove (whitewash, if you will) their bios for what you consider insufficient cause. I totally would understand that because I have an aversion to the converse: unnotable people wanting to insert vanity biographies into the Wikipedia. It's not really a big deal, but I just have a personal visceral aversion to that such that it pisses me off. It's purely a personal idiosyncracy on my part though. (I mean, I can and do go especially out of my way to make strong arguments to delete vanity-type articles and am entitled to, but I realize I'm doing that because that's just the way I roll.)

Anyway, whether it's a personal idiosyncracy on your part or not, it kind of comes down to personal feeling or opinion to some degree. In cases like this I just feel "give the guy a break" IF he's really only marginally notable. Enh, the guy's 84, he's probably an OK guy but he got some notice in the papers which is maybe unhappy-making (it's not in the article now (though it's in as a ref) but nobody can guarantee that it won't go in at some point), or maybe he just wants a sense of privacy in his old age or whatever. Anyway he doesn't want the article, we don't really need it, cut the guy some slack, this is where I'm coming from. It's a reasonable thing to feel IMO.

(This informs my argument, but even if a person doesn't share this feeling I'm not withdrawing my other assertions re the person not meeting notability requirements and the Daily News ref being off base and most of the other refs being not too good and so on.) Herostratus (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Herostratus's excellent analysis, including (but not limited to) the fact that the subject requested deletion. 28bytes (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Herostratus TheOverflow (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I got the identity right, he meets WP:GNG: [10], [11], [12]. Granted, it's mostly gossipy coverage, but it is sources coverage that indicates notability. I concur with Kww that we should not care at all of what the subject wants about the existence of article. The BLP subject is welcome to comment on its accuracy and fairness, but the existence of the article is not something they should have any voice about. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those are OK refs, but only if we change to lede to something along the lines of "Sandy Frank is a private citizen who, in his eighties, appears to be having a rough time of it and got in the papers.[ref][ref][ref] He was an obscure television executive in the middle of the last century[detailed citations needed]."

All three of those refs go into the details of Mr Frank's career to this the level of detail: "Sandy Frank, a former television producer, was...." and that's about it. So if we're gonna use those refs, let's not pretend the article is about his television career and let's be honest with our lede. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm aside, it seems you are acknowledging that refs show notability, and then pointing at problems which can be solved by editing, not deletion. Thus you are actually saying we have to keep the article per our deletion policy.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in our deletion policy that requires us to keep articles that are sourced to, as you put it, "mostly gossipy coverage". There is, however, this policy, which says: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid." and "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." and "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern." 28bytes (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding, but this has little to do with the article existence.--cyclopia ^speak! 19:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well but it does, because you can't use those sources. So you have an insufficiently ref'd BLP. "Pointing at problems which can be solved by editing" does not, actually, include changing the lede to open with "Sandy Frank is a private citizen who, in his eighties, appears to be having a rough time of it and got in the papers". We can't actually have articles with ledes like that. And if we're not going to do that we aren't going to use those refs. So having a BLP with insufficient refs to support an actual article is reason for deleting. Yeah you could stub it... in theory. I'm not finding any actual usable refs at all that even indicate that this person actually exists and was a television producer (there are enough unreliable or unusable refs that I'm confident that it's almost certainly true, but that's way not good enough for a contended BLP), so I'm not even seeing a stub here. Even if you could ginny up a stub, that's worse than nothing because 1) stubs on unnotable people have even less encyclopedic value than articles on unnotable people, and 2) the existing stub is just a time bomb and attractive nuisance for people to put back in inflammatory material, so you have a net negative value to the encyclopedia, not even considering 3) he asked us to remove it. No article here. Herostratus (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first two refs are marginal, but the third is an extremely relevant and interesting link. The fact is, right here we find Sandy Frank deciding what kind of media is going to be produced and shown to perhaps millions of people --- and a government using arbitrary criteria to pay him to make this kind of show but not that kind of show. Censorship is usually not as blatant as the outright prosecution; we see here the state controllers behind the scenes. Definitely worth keeping now. Wnt (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting. There's three interesting things in it: 1) State governments give tax breaks for media productions, which I already knew, but which is a debatable and contentious policy which is worth writing about, 2) Michigan does, but not for game shows which it would be interesting know the reason for that (maybe because they don't spend much money) and 3) they apparently have a definition of "game show" which is rather nebulous which that could be problematic. Subsidies of American media production could be an interesting article, maybe, and this ref could be used there. It can be used here too, it's a usable ref. That's all it is, you could add a sentence about the lawsuit (although failed lawsuits, which this one very probably was, aren't that notable). It's not core to the article but it's a perfectly fine ref for its purpose, without telling the reader much about Sandy Frank. Herostratus (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:BIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a biography on a subject that only meets our eligibility criteria by a small margin, if at all, and where the subject requests deletion, we should defer to that request. Peacock (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of film producers. There's a few refs out there (New York Daily News (Despite the potentially inflammatory content of the webpage used to reference a clearly non-inflammatory fact) and Hollywood Reporter (as mentioned by Cyclopia) being two), but it'll probably remain a stub with just a list of what he's directed. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure that I buy into the argument that Sandy Frank is an unknown, obscure producer. There are plenty of hits on the Google News Archive and Highbeam Research. For example, [13] and [14]. I'm usually a pretty reliable "delete" voter, especially on articles where the subject has requested deletion, but this is different. We're not talking about someone who made the news for a questionable publicity stunt or youthful indiscretions. This is a Hollywood producer with a notable career. If he finds the article distasteful, he can always propose changes on the talk page. I am open to such a dialogue. I reject Wnt's argument of "we have a right to know", and I would suggest that it be discounted by the closer. This should be decided by notability, not politically-charged rhetoric. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is meant to refute the implication by others that the abundant sources about him somehow don't count because he was "behind the scenes" rather than in front of the camera. But if you don't believe my assertion of notability, consider this 2011 press release by his lawyer:^[15]

"Sandy Frank, a legendary entertainment industry icon, pioneer, and innovator, is well known throughout the entertainment industry for his shows, “Name That Tune,” “Battle of the Planets,” “You Asked For It,” and many other television programs and productions. With over five decades in creation, production, and syndication in television and film, he is the most successful and longest running privately-owned syndication business in the world. In addition to selling programming into syndication and broadcast prime time in the United States, he has sold, syndicated and/or otherwise distributed his television and film properties throughout the world, in over one hundred (100) separate and distinct countries worldwide. Frank was among the first to have the foresight and genius to buy and transform Japanese animation, bringing Japan’s “Gatchaman” to the English-speaking world as “Battle of the Planets.”

Wnt (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If you don't believe me, read this press release" is not a very strong argument... Herostratus (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a reliable source, then it's a very strong argument. This appears to be from a self-published source though, so I'm not sure how it holds up. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 22:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're "not sure" how it holds up? Sheesh, if you're "not sure" how that holds up, what would it take to find a source that you would be sure would not hold up? A person yelling on the subway? Laundry tags? WP:GUYINBAR? You could get the editor of an actual reliable source to print that if you kidnapped his daughter, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so my understanding about how press releases fit into WP:SPS and WP:RS is a little murky; all I was doing was refuting your argument about how reading a ref isn't a good argument. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex}

Self-published sources do NOT add to notability, just to be clear. 03:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, OK, sorry Supernerd11. Sometimes when these discussions go on for a while I fall into being a bit snarky, a weakness I try to work on but will probably never completely overcome. And I apologize for that uncalled-for level of snark and appreciate your cool and measured response. Yes of course we're all trying to figure these things out and we never stop learning. And of course these are debatable issues.

I would say that as a general rule press releases make very poor sources, even if they're published in usually-somewhat-reliable sources. Press agents are always trying to get their releases in the paper, and sometimes they succeed. I had a case a while back of a newspaper, it was just a local small-town paper but as a real newspaper generally assumed to have some reliability. Well they published an "article" but further investigation revealed that what they had done was publish a press release, unedited and presumably without vetting it. And the claim was made that since it was in a newspaper it was a usable source.

But it doesn't work like that. There's no magic bullet such that getting published in venue X automatically confers reliability to some material. Publications can be reliable for some things and in some cases and unreliable for other things and cases. It's complicated. Any press releases are not considered likely to be accurate because they're inherently self-serving. They might be accurate about some facts but that's not their reason for existing. It's complicated here too, because press releases simply detailing an anodyne fact -- "For Immediate Release, from North American Veblefetzer: Bob Smith was appointed General Manger of the Widgit Division today" -- are usually OK if not contested, because there's no reason for North American Veblefetzer to lie about that or spin it and they're not likely to be wrong about it.

However, the press release we're talking about is shot through with statements of opinion and peacock terms so even any statements of fact are dubious since the entire thing is clearly self-serving.Iit's not usable, even it it had somehow slipped by the editor an actual newspaper. That it's in a self-published source is so much the worse but it wouldn't be usable in any case. Herostratus (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. The game shows are notable, and beyond that, an article about Frank would be more or less a copy paste of articles about the same shows, with little to no other content, particularly as the articles only mention him briefly. Non notable person. If the article is kept, then it should be stubbed and only the information pertinent to his career should be included, and the irrelevant stuff from his personal life removed. We're an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources identified by User:NinjaRobotPirate clearly establish notability. Comments calling for deletion, made prior to their post, should be treated accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well not really. User:NinjaRobotPirate gave us two refs. Let's look at them.

The first is from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, a reasonably notable paper. There's the dateline "Hollywood" so it's presumably from a stringer or service, but there's no byline nor attribution to a press service such as UPI or Reuters. The material, unlike most of the refs, goes beyond a mere mention of Frank. Here's the relevant material in its entirety. The bolding is mine to point out some passages, it is not in the original.

"Even in an industry not known for its high level of taste, producer Sandy Frank has to win this season's award for Tacky Taste -- for the blatant way it which he's attempting to cash in on the assassination of Anwar Sadat to hype interest in his proposed TV film on the Egyptian leader's life. While details of Sadat's slaying were still coming in two weeks ago, Frank was undertaking a hard-sell media campaign aimed at bringing attention to the product he's unsuccessfully tried to peddle to the networks since 1979. And while world leaders were still gathered in Cairo to attend Sadat's funeral, Frank was trying to feed me additional details on the project. It was a brief conversation. As soon as I conveyed my feelings about his actions, I got off the phone."

Well let's see. How can we use this reference?

We can't quote from it. There's no byline! (There are other reasons, but that'll do.)
We can't use it to ref a statement like "Frank had a project for a film on Anwar Sadat but it was never made" (even if the source was reliable, which of course it's on a different planet from reliable) because we don't get down in the weeds about stuff like that... we don't even know if there was a script or whatever. A proposed film that was never made might be OK for the articles on Woody Allen or Martin Scorsese, but even for them probably only if it got fairly well along.
We can't use to to ref a statement like "Frank is vulgar, for instance he attempted to cash in on the assassination of Anwar Sadat to promote a proposed film on Sadat's life". Right? I hope that's clear. Nor can we weasel around that with a statement like "Some commentators have claimed that Frank is vulgar, for instance he attempted to cash in on the assassination of Anwar Sadat to promote a poposed film on Sadat's life". The commentor's anonymous, and even if we dig up his name he presumably lacks standing (notability, expertise) to be considered "some commentator" for our purposes: "some commentators" can't include forum posts or your Uncle Dwight for the same reason.

So, you know, what good is this ref? It isn't any good. (Amusingly, you can infer that Frank initiated the call (!) and we know for sure that the reporter gave Frank flack about the project (!!) and then the reporter terminated the call (!!!). Heh. Some reporting! Such professional, much reliable. So Frank got the number of some D-list flack who didn't have a secretary to screen his calls and was desperate for copy because no real people will talk to him (if that, maybe he just heard about the project and made up the phone call for effect). So what? Piling on unusable refs is not helpful.

The other ref is Variety which is of course highly notable. Again, my bolding. The copy is:

"Distributor Sandy Frank ('Name That Tune') is looking to romance the US syndication marketplace for the first time in recent memory with the dating/game strip 'Lovers or Liars'... With so few opportunities these days for an indie unaligned with a station group to launch a syndie show, 35-year-old Sandy Frank Entertainment has steered its product toward international distribution over the years..." (The rest is behind a paywall.)

Again, some proposal that AFAIK never got off the ground. (Here's he's just a distributor rather than the producer, except I think to be a distributor you have to actually distribute stuff.) How are you going to use this ref? You can't use this ref. "Sandy Frank tried to get a show called 'Lovers or Liars' distributed but nobody would return his calls", maybe? Is the article about Frank in any meaningful way? It's not. Variety is notable and (I assume) reliable, so the ref can be used, but probably only to ref the statement "Frank was a distributor". Piling on they-mentioned-his-name refs like this does help round out the References section, but it can't be the core of the References section. Herostratus (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Herostratus makes a solid point, but I have to side with NRP - there seem to be enough reliable sources here and I think he meets WP:GNG based on them, regardless of their usability level. The article is in pretty poor shape now but I think it could be fixed. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's noted as a key figure in bringing Japanese animation to North America. This is one book from Palgrave Macmillan with four pages outlining his initial involvement. (I don't think it's been mentioned by any other editor here at this point.) He seems to be frequently mentioned in other histories of that time period. Notability is not the same thing as general fame, and he seems to have been a noted TV producer, for different shows and genres in different time periods. He's not an unknown, and he received press and book coverage for different aspects of his career, whether anime distribution or the new tax credit push. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of the material from the book, more can be added from other book sources (I don't see much in the above discussion about his coverage in books; I don't know why people forget to look there so often). Beyond the secondary coverage, just one look at his own company's biography of him, should convince anyone that the subject is not seeking to keep a low public profile, nor that he is ashamed of his career accomplishments, nor that he considers himself to have a single reason to be considered notable. He seems just as proud of his Battle of the Planets work as the academic books, the bio asserts that his game show work was of significance to him. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is only for low-profile, non-public individuals. Being considered "low profile" is completely off the table for someone sending out self-publicizing press releases as recently as June 2014. In this May 2014 press release, the first words are Sandy Frank, it quotes Sandy Frank extensively, and it ends with an invitation to contact Sandy Frank if you need any more information about Sandy Frank. Not a subject trying to avoid the public. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Not compelling, since having a bio on one's website or whatever is not proof that one wants or expects to be or should be immortalized here. But I'd be interested to hear from the subject's agent, who has posted to Wikipedia, about the reasons for Mr Frank's desire to not have an article. It's one thing if the reason is "I want privacy" and another if "I prefer to control how I am presented in the media and since I can't do that here I'd rather have no article at all". If it's the latter then we're going to be a lot less receptive. I'll ask him. Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's employee talked about reasons here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the same Sandy Frank who attempted to sue the Internet Archive over hosting public domain material here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wants the page removed "for business reasons" is what his agent said. Hmmmm, that could just be a kind of filler verbiage type thing, but if you take it literally, it would weaken his standing to have us take into consideration his request to have the page removed quite a bit IMO. I mean, it's not written in our rules, but for my part I'd treat quite differently "I want my page removed because I'm not a public figure and just want privacy" from "I want my page removed for business reasons". If it's the latter, so what, really.

Well, let's see. We're still getting new sources (which is a useful outcome of these discussions) and if enough of them are useful, and now with his motivation being called into question, I'd have to say in all fairness that deletion arguments are getting a lot weaker... Herostratus (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources about his prominence in early television distribution: [16] [17] [18]. I haven't worked anything into the article from them yet. I think there are more things offline than online for this subject, but he's treated as significant by his peers in published accounts, which speaks to WP:ANYBIO's The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Canterbury Cathedral. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Cathedral Appeal[edit]

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

A search on Google suggests that this is not a notable article topic on its own; there are no references in the article as it stands, and few others I could find, other than the occasional passing mention in the news. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why did the name of the nominator not appear? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - (Changed my vote from "delete" to "merge" after seeing the below votes.) Now that I see the name, delete per nom. (Not that I opine this way for the name, but the argument.:) No sources, not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canterbury Cathedral: Not independently notable at all.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Canterbury Cathedral per 180, Better merging than deleting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not a slam dunk, but a growing consensus to keep the article.Mojo Hand (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creative work[edit]

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

Without sources since several years. PRODed more than once. Not an encyclopedic issue. Maybe could go to Wictionary. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not permitted to PROD an article more than once. That indicates ignorance of our deletion policies. It is not a favourable sign for deletion. It indicates that the people who are itching to delete this article are not likely to know what should or should not be deleted. James500 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Utterly absurd nomination. Should be closed immediately. Satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin. Amongst other things, very important concept in British and Irish tax law (Ireland: Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, s 195; Finance Act 1994, s 14; Finance Act 1969, s 2. United Kingdom: Finance Act 2001, Sch 24; Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, s 221). Massive coverage in GBooks. Plausible redirect or dab page (though that is probably purely academic since this will obviously be kept). The only criticism of this article is that it is an awful stub. But that is no grounds to delete anything, see WP:IMPERFECT. James500 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize I PRODed a previously PRODed article and it has been my mistake. Sorry. (Thanks for waking me up.) Whether I know or not our deletion policies enough may be seen in my AfD participation. The discussion is not about me, I know, but I had to say something. So now let's concentrate on discussing the possibility of deletion of this article and not the concerned users. Regards.--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a WP:DICDEF, and is already defined on Wiktionary: wikt:creative work. In any event, entirely WP:OR. TJRC (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DICDEF is not going to apply here because, to begin with, there are plenty of sources discussing the tax implications of creative works. The article has to be evaluated on the basis of what it could become. James500 (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why DICDEF does not apply. There's nothing here except a dictionary definition. I see no indication that the term, as a term, meets WP:GNG. TJRC (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DICDEF only applies to an article that cannot be expanded beyond a dictionary definition, not to any article that simply consists of a definition. If you have not found sources that indicate that this term satisfies GNG, it is because you simply have not looked hard enough for them. James500 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some material to the article that is not OR. James500 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that edit, but the source does not describe or define or explain what a "creative work" is, it simply refers to them. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source does define "creative works". It also prescribes the effect on income tax of fluctuating income from creative works. James500 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing any evidence of notability for the topic. Yes, it's used in a statute, but that's a WP:PRIMARY source. Is there something that indicates the phrase is notable? For example, in this legal context, are there published law review articles or other WP:SECONDARY sources on the importance of the status of a "creative work" or explaining what qualifies as a creative work? The mere fact that a term is used and defined is not enough to meet WP:GNG. That meets the requirements of a dictionary (hence the dicdef), but not of an encyclopedia, at least, not this one.

If your interest is primarily definitional, your efforts may be better spent on updating the Wiktionary entry. Wiktionary is not a second-class repository to Wikipedia, and there's no shame in a phrase being defined there rather than Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try to actually comply with WP:BEFORE and look for yourself. But here is something that you can find in about five seconds.

You know perfectly well that tax implications are not "definitional". James500 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that book, so you'll need to do something more than just posting a URL to a web page about it. And you definitely need to work on both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. So far in this discussion, all you've done is made unsupported assertions, and accused both of the other editors trying to discuss his with you of not understanding AFD rather than making responsive replies. I'll monitor this discussion, but unless I see an actual substantive response, I don't expect to be persuaded. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a webpage about the book, it is a preview, a scanned copy, of the book that you can read. It links directly to the part of the book that discusses Sch 24 of the Finance Act 2001 in great detail. It is a link to a scanned copy of page 89 of that book on GBooks. And you can read that book yourself and you do not need me to tell you what it says. James500 (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Google books provides different pages based on geo, but in the US, where I am, I see "No eBook available" and a button to "Get Print Book". This might be a good time for you to cut back on those unwarranted assumptions you've been making all day and perhaps provide the support for the claims you've been making, as you've been asked to provide. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided all the support that is necessary. James500 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a book discussing "original and creative work" under the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. Here is a discussion of that concept under the Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America. James500 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to consider is that since "creative work" is a collective term for literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and designs, this article is the parent article of article of Literature and Art and etc, and must be notable if its WP:SPINOFFS are. (Though here you have the option of showing that it is a fork of a co-terminus article if that is the case, in which case this article would be merged and redirected, but certainly would not be deleted). James500 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this should be included in the deletion sorting lists for film, television, software and video games, as I suspect they are creative works as well. I am not sure what lists designs would go under. James500 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "creative work" produces more than 1000 results in GBooks alone (Google won't let you look at more than 100 pages of results). Even a narrower expression like "original and creative work" produces more than 45 pages of results in GBooks alone. No one can look through all of that. I suspect that people will be tempted to come here and say "I can't determine whether creative works are notable because a large proportion of the massive number of Google results are not helpful because this is such a common expression". The problem with that reasoning is that it would justify the deletion of many obviously notable topics such as, say, buckets or sandcastles. But we don't need Google or GNG to tell us that buckets and sandcastles are notable, because we all know that they are. I hope that we don't need Google and GNG to tell us that creative works are notable. This nomination is basically a proposal to delete, at a minimum, the whole of literature, art, drama, music and industrial design because that is what creative works are. Please don't ask me to provide sources to show that creative works satisfy GNG, because I am really not in a mood to prove the obvious. James500 (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many legal terms listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_terms & I don't see why this one should be singled out for deletion rather than the many far more obscure ones. Especially since it is such an important concept. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an inherently notable legal term. AfD is not meant to rescue obviously notable articles. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Bearian. I see its use at the WIPO. There are also many hits at the New York Times, such as [19] and [20]. It looks like this is a notable legal term. With more effort, I could probably locate better and more relevant sources, but it's difficult to imagine how this wouldn't be mind-numbingly boring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Zetumer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN screenwriter. Only has one film to his credit. It's safe to say it's too soon for an article. (First AFD had no participants). Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am here to testify that the person is NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Variety says: "Joshua Zetumer: 10 Screenwriters to Watch". That translates to: may be notable in the future. Good luck to him, and hope he does succeed. LaMona (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfish.ie[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable company. Snappy (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH, two of the three cited sources reference the same contract. Basically trivial coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mapy[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software. damiens.rf 14:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. The official website and sources in the article (which appears to be a web forum and a WordPress blog) are dead now. I do not see how this piece of software is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Farooqui[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete • The article lacks significant coverage and on that it fails WP:N. CutestPenguin (Talk) 18:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Davey2010, no real coverage, not much of a claim to notability, possibly of local interest. --Bejnar (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Jordaan[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2011. Non notable local radio station presenter Gbawden (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, three external links, one to facebook, one to twitter and one to the radio station where he worked. No particular claim to notability. No coverage found. There are other people named "Jean Jordaan" in South Africa. --Bejnar (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. LaMona (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Verma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Persistently reposted bio of non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. —Ascii002 (Talk • Contribs • Sign my Guestbook) 14:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the usual notability checks. I found no sources covering him. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gaurav 14:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)http://www.basearticles.com/Article/9542/Rahul-Verma-biography.html Rahul Verma biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goarav5674 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC) gaurav 15:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Gaurav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goarav5674 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Not notable, and is a clear copyright violation of [21]. KJ^Discuss? 01:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete : Non-notable and even it lacks significant coverage. CutestPenguin • Talk 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no such notable cricketer Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and WP:COPYVIO -- SaHiL (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt author has removed speedy deletion tags twice on 11 August before they were acted upon, and has removed the afd notice twice, once on 12 August and once on 13 August. Previous articles were deleted: 5 September 2007 after Afd; 24 April 2009 speedy A7; 8 August 2014 speedy A7, G12; and 11 August 2014 speedy A3. Current version appears to be a copyright violation of Rahul Verma biography at BaseArticles (a free article publishing website), not a Wikipedia mirror. In addition fails WP:ATHLETE. --Bejnar (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nirman Dave[edit]

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

Non-notable computer programmer and founder/CEO of an unremarkable (start-up?) company. Article subject has not received significant coverage; some of the article's sources are not reliable/independent of the subject, such as SourceNet, his "company", and Movzio, a "blogging site". Randor1980 (talk | contributions) 13:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article seems more like a quasi-Facebook bio than an encyclopedic article. Sources presented are dubious and unreliable, which indicates the subject is not notable. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Article seems to be of notability as the work done by the 18 year old chap is remarkable and should be kept on wikipedia for people to know more about the same and be inspired. Although the company mentioned: SourceNet is unknown, the projects mentioned are extremely remarkable. While "Movzio" seems like a blogging site, other references mentioned should also be taken into consideration as they are not "blogging" sites, such as YourStory. Hence, the article should not be deleted. Nirman Dave has made his own programming language at the age of 17 years. When do you see such people everyday? It is highly preferred that this article should not be deleted. Kentmathamlin (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Kentmathamlin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Person seems a self proclaimed programmer. No notable sources. YourStory is not a reliable source. All other sources presented are dubious and unreliable, and are in a form of interviews and generated by the subject himself which indicates the subject is not notable. SmackoVector (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources given are not reliable or independent. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - This 18 year old has done great work. He is very well known and should be considered and not deleted. Blackbaby123 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC) — Blackbaby123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:GNG, and WP:RS. What 'great work' has he done? Well known? Seriously? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO as well as it seems to be the case of WP:COI since the image used in the infobox is owned by the uploader i.e. the contributor of the article. CutestPenguin • Talk 13:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand your point about the COI and the image. Could you be a bit clearer? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsrikanth05: The image used in the infobox under the same articles is uploaded by the contributer who is claiming to be the owner of the image File:NirmanDave.jpg and it appears that the user created the account for single purpose. CutestPenguin • Talk 14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, okay. I agree, the account seems to be a single purpose one, but the COI image argument doesn't hold good. The account may be an acquaintance of the subject. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Likely self-promotion. The SPAs arguing that he is "very well known" are not very convincing. It's too soon for an article on this guy. Once he gets some legitimate coverage in reliable sources, we can write an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Zygote[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amusingly, I think I was the one who added the sole reference to a reliable source. I was going to check back on this article later and nominate for deletion if it didn't improve, but I guess I forgot. If anything, it got worse – it's even more promotional than it was before. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. References have been added which established notability - the noms main concern (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EmperorLinux[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is notable, but perhaps it is worth merge/redirect to another Linux article? Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I never heard of it before, but it's apparently notable: Tech Hive (PC World), PC Magazine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Recent addition of refs seems to establish notability as per WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. I don't think an admin will be likely to clear the way for a move of Mr. Ferguson's draft to any of the salted article-space titles without a DRV discussion, so the draft can probably be allowed to remain for now. Deor (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah H Ferguson[edit]

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

He has opened for some acts and has made some video's with D12 but I don't think he meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO Gbawden (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this page should not be deleted Jeremiah Ferguson (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)jeremiah[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as pointed out by the user above - the page was created by a user named Jeremiah Ferguson. Bit of a COI as well Gbawden (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this user seems fairly determined to have an article about himself - Jeremiah Ferguson and Jeremiah ferguson have already been salted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, salt this one too while we're at it. STATic message me! 18:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt. Non-notable musician. A lot of references in the article are bogus as well and don't back up the claims - they're not particularly reliable either. There is Draft:Jeremiah Ferguson but Mr. Ferguson seems intent on subverting the review process. Given the others were salted, the draft should mayhaps be removed as well. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work but not deletion.. Jeremiah Ferguson (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt due to insufficient sourcing and not meeting WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the influx of SPAs, the consensus is that, because of the dearth of treatment in reliable, independent secondary sources, the article's subject fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:N. I've also taken into account the opinions expressed in the previous AfD. Deor (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Count of Luxburg[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Friedrich Ulrich Count of Luxburg

Articles for deletion/Friedrich Count of Luxburg

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

Enough has been added to this article since the last AfD that it should have another discussion, but the new material is mainly about the subject's family and ancestors, who already have an article at Counts of Luxburg. There is little information about the subject himself, and what there is is quite unsourced.

The three references are links to a house and a bank once associated with the family, and the pretty but fairly uninformative website of a Panama-based "Fundación de Los Condes de Luxburg". Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his ancestors; neither the references nor the other links show the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" necessary to establish WP:Notability, nor have I found any.

The corresponding article on Spanish Wikipedia has been deleted as No enciclopédico. JohnCD (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only for that (at least the third time it was deleted) but also for CoI. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any evidence this rich guy is notable. I'm sure he's also nice, but he fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I checked all references in the article, but are about Castle Luxburg (and not about him) or are self-published. WP:AUTOBIO--Yopie (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few sources in Spanish have been added recently, but they are only passing mentions and a "collaborative journal" does not look like a reliable source. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete, the item and you get better and better edited for presentation, and I noticed judge a person for money which should not be so people earn their position is by their actions--Dbianchir (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)— Dbianchir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are the creater of the article, right? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete, the article is well thought out and I see that improved sources and references, I think someone is starting a witch hunt to gain popularity (Yopie)--Marttinm (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)— Marttinm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Obvious keepI see the article was corrected and improved, sr. Yopie read this Wikipedia:Speedy keep--Highlander lion (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)— Highlander lion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Article says almost nothing about him, although it makes much mention of his family and family members. None of the references is about him, and the first one doesn't mention him at all, it's just a photo of their houses. Unless some real references can be found, there is no evidence of notability here. LaMona (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin Accounts Marttinm,Dbianchir and Highlander lion are single-purpose accounts.--Yopie (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin sr Yopie, if you do not like the way I see my this article must comply with to give their opinion and not believe the highest authority in wikipedia you like all of us is a contributor and we all want to be the best wikipedia, seems to be a political enemy of Count more objective and neutral.--Highlander lion (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should better use Google Translate. It gives more acceptable results. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep as a person who provides services and training aids to people in need of Venezuela that could be noticeable.--Racanno (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)— Racanno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to WP, Racanno. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 CONCACAF Girls' U-15 Championship[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with the rationale "clearly notable" provided without any elucidation. Per This discussion and this discussion, consensus is that junior tournaments need to satisfy GNG and are not inherently notable simply because they have been organised by a regional confederation. No indication that this tournament has received the required level of significant, reliable, non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Also significant WP:NOTSTATS concerns due to an almost complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of media coverage (and more [22][23][24][25][26][27]), so clearly meets WP:GNG. And I think we should consider whether any tournament organised by a continental confederation should be automatically notable. Number 5 7 21:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is all WP:ROUTINE match reporting that gives little more than squad list and match summaries. For a continental tournament involving multiple international teams, the google search you have provided beings back an exceedingly low number of results. Fenix down (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the links? This is not a match report, nor is this or this or this or this or this. And even if there were only match reports, the games are being covered by national media in the respective countries, which is a clear sign of notability. I really don't understand your logic. Number 5 7 08:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Passes GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Completely notable article, and an ongoing sport event. Meets all guidelines, and should not be deleted. Canucksfan97 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Number 57 and it Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 CONCACAF Under-15 Championship[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with the rationale "clearly notable" provided without any elucidation. Per This discussion and this discussion, consensus is that junior tournaments need to satisfy GNG and are not inherently notable simply because they have been organised by a regional confederation. No indication that this tournament has received the required level of significant, reliable, non-routine coverage to satisfy GNG. Also significant WP:NOTSTATS concerns due to an almost complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Competition is notable and the competition is even used by FIFA to determine whether players are allowed to represent other national teams in future. TheBigJagielka (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could you please expand on this considering the previous AfDs noted above for similar youth tournaments and show how the competition fulfils GNG. Fenix down (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Fenix down: I'll try, I'm not very good at explaining things. The world governing body of football, FIFA use competitions organised by the six confederations (this one is organised by CONCACAF - one of the six confederations) when taking into account whether a player can represent another nation. The FIFA statutes refer to the competitions organised by the six confederations as "official competitions" and the list of confederations are on page 17.

In Article 8.1 of the 2013 Statutes (page 65), it says that a player can not play for another nation if he has played in this competition before obtaining citizenship of another country.

"He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an Official Competition at “A” international level for his current Association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an Official Competition for his current Association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play" - Page 65 of FIFA's statutes

FIFA define an official competition as "a competition for representative teams organised by FIFA or any Confederation" - Page 5 of FIFA's statutes

For example, if Leighton Thomas Jr. the golden boot winner from the 2013 competition relocated to Canada and earned citizenship through residency, he wouldn't be able to play for Canada's national football (soccer) team because he played in this CONCACAF-organised tournament for Cayman Islands prior to gaining citizenship. Unlike most other youth football tournaments, this one (and those organised by confederations) have the ability to 'bind'/cap-tie players to the respective national team. TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So how does this indicate GNG? Why does what you have said equate to significant, reliable coverage? As Number 57 has inadvertantly shown, the most readily available sources are simply word for word copies of what appears very much like a Concacaf press release. Fenix down (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be plenty of media coverage of it from several different countries, so meets WP:GNG (Trinidad, Guyana, St Vincent, Caymans,St Lucia, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahamas etc). Number 5 7 21:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Number 57: did you actually read these "sources"? They are essentially all repetition of the same press release with almost identical, if not identical quotes from the Concacaf president and a brief description of how the logo was designed. They clearly all come from the same source, are all very brief and in no way establish GNG. Where is the in depth non-routine coverage of the tournament. @Davey2010: might also want to reread the various sources provided. Fenix down (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fenix down: Yes, I did read them, which is why I provided them here. They are not all the same press release - some talk about the makeup of the tournament, some talk about the participants, the St Lucia one is an interview with their FA's technical directors. But if you need more: mid tournament report, a trials prior to the tournament, report on the final, announcement of the Bermuda squad, a Jamaica-Grenada match report. There are plenty more if you care to look for yourself. Number 5 7 08:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree, and would politely suggest you give them a third viewing. For example, this source which you quote in support of GNG even has a logo on it confirming that it is a CONCACAF press release!! To go through them in detail:

Bahamas - this is the source acknowledging it is a CONCACAF press release and therefore a primary source entirely unsuitable for establishing GNG. It deals mainly with how the logo was designed and contains a quote from Jeffrey Webb. The majority of this report is word for word identical to the original press release
Bermuda - clearly states at the top that it is an announcement from CONCACAF
Jamaica - is word for word identical to Bermuda's reporting of the announcement and so cannot be used to support GNG twice!
St Lucia - comes back as a 404 error for me. Did you mistype this? However, if it is an interview with FA technical directors, therefore people affiliated with CONCACAF it is hardly a secondary source in my opinion.
St Vincent - once you strip out the WP:ROUTINE listing of the teams competing and the Vincentian squad, there is only about three sentences in this article, which is basically a summary of this press release.
Guyana - is word for word identical to Jamaica and Bermuda, so cannot be used to support GNG and is further evidence that this is a pro forma press release from a primary source as this report is featuring in multiple countries.
Caymans islands is word for word identical to this CONCACAF press release

What I think we have established here for the first set of sources presented is that they come essentialy from two CONCACAF press releases and as such are not indicative of substantial coverage in secondary sources to satisfy GNG. For the other sources you listed:

mid tournament report - is simply routine match reporting in only the most cursory of detail and a list of games that will take place in the future, this sort of reporting is performed for almost all tournaments in local journalism around the world whether international or club.
trials report - is a brief two sentence quote from the manager with the squad listing tacked on the end, no substance to it whatsoever, your local non-league team's manager would get this sort of quote in the local paper week in week out.
report on the final - as you say yourself, this is just a match report essentially saying who scored and when, there is no wider discussion of the tournament, players or teams.
Bermuda squad announcement - again as you say, this is just a list of names, there's no discussion of the players themselves or the tournament, just a statement that they are going.
Jamaica-Greneda match report - this is a 5-sentence match report. No substance whatsoever, just a very brief summary of the match.

Yes the competition is being covered, but only through press releases that have been regurgitated almost verbatim by the participating countries' newspapers and a few brief squad announcements / match reports. There is no discussion of the wider impact of this tournament to satisfy GNG that I can see. Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think we'll have to disagree, as for me, this is more than sufficient coverage. If you want discussion on the wider impact, this article talks about it ("Sustainability is integral to CONCACAF now and competitions like this, where youth is the main focus, will only help contribute to a better future. Islands that hadn’t played competitively for a number of years were finally given a go, aspiring footballers in their early teens were given the opportunity of a lifetime and significant coverage went to the youth teams of 22 CONCACAF sides which can only be beneficial economically and socially."), but I'm sure you'll find a reason to disregard it ;) Number 5 7 12:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS, this is the St Lucia source. The SLFA are not the same thing as CONCACAF. Number 5 7 12:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Fenix down, why only CONCACAF youth tournaments? Why not delete 2014 UEFA European Under-19 Championship? Kingjeff (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, U-19 UEFA players are almost always likely to be professionals. Here we are dealing with people who are essentially school children, the two are not comparable in any way. What we have here is an article on a number of very junior international teams (by age I mean), for which not one article currently exists on any of the teams, and a competition where not one single participant could be considered notable either by WP:NFOOTY of WP:GNG criteria, yet somehow one edition of the competition in which they all partake is notable. That seems completely backwards to me logically. Fenix down (talk)

We are not talking about the notability of players. We're talking about the actual tournament itself. A tournament doesn't necessarily gain notability solely based on the notability of players. A more comparable tournament would be 2014 UEFA European Under-17 Championship. Why delete one and not the other? Both, the two I mentioned and the one up for deletion qualify because they're official competitions. Kingjeff (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Passes GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs improved references - not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Number 57 and Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hirangi Ashar[edit]

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

Article and search fail to show Hirangi Ashar is notable at this time. Stesmo (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 19:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoya-Boya[edit]

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

This article is a mess with a lot of links to blogs. Is this mascot really notable? Don't believe it is, and fails RS IMO Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this sort of practice-English is of zero value anyway, and would be better deleted, and if really noteworthy, a new article created. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really can't understand what it's supposed to be about. Deb (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaze no ryu[edit]

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

I don't really know how to deal with this. The article includes vast tracks of repetition from existing articles such as the History of Japanese martial arts and different types of martial art which as a first step I would delete. The history of the style as given has serious issues (dare I say made up) - such as claims of Eimishi origin and Koryu status. Looking at the references specifically referring to the art they are all primary. I just can not give a judgment on notability because the truth is too hidden in the cruft. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that this was created on mass by a SPA and looks like it might have come from a dojo website. I could not find the source (so I may be wrong) but my gut says copy paste. Furthermore the subject has been discussed on several forums (eg. e-budo and aikiweb) and the consensus seems to be that it is made up.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks significant independent coverage and my search didn't find any. Jakejr (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's true the article could use a serious rewrite. However, I believe it's a moot point since there appears to be a lack of significant independent coverage. The article appears to have lots of sources, but they don't seem to be independent of the organization and people running it. Papaursa (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Easton (artist)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found and added the following sources, which I think should be enough for WP:GNG: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. As head of two art centers there's also a plausible case for WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sajna - Pyaar Nibhaana Yeh Dushman[edit]

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

This article is a hoax, made up title of television series which does not exist, whole info copied from several other Wikipedia articles for Indian television series, (i.e: Detail of Infobox is copied from Saraswatichandra (TV series)) Babita arora 05:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyside Mall[edit]

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

NN 311,000 sq. ft. shopping mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Sunnyside Mall is a major landmark in the small city of Bedford, I've been there; not particularly architectural notable, it's very prominent in the narrow valley that forms part of Bedford, it's notable. Rating things on NYC/LA/Chicago-sized notions of notability by square footage is not valid; landmark status and importance in a local community should qualify. Too many malls are being deleted lately this way, without real time for discussion; this appeared on Article Alerts in WP:CANTALK. Did you think about asking for input and expansion of content and refs on WikiProject Nova Scotia, or are you acting only on the quantitative-defined guideline decided upon by a handful of Wikipedians somewhere else only? Various of the recent deletions I will seek to have restored, e.g. the Royal City Centre, a picture of which rightly remains as the main image in the infobox of the New Westminster article and was featured on the deleted page. It's a major part of the cityscape, just as Sunnyside Mall is in Bedford. Big-city values do not mesh well with qualitative genuine assessment of whether something is notable or not. The shopping mall notability guidelines are not rules (Fifth Pillar: "there are no rules", remember?). You and the others on t his campaign of deletion are wiping out much of the social and retail landscape in Canadian cities and towns, which are necessarily smaller than their UK and US counterparts.Skookum1 (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Write about it in the Bedford, Nova Scotia article so long as it is not given undue emphasis and as long as you cite to reliable sources for any facts that you present. --Bejnar (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Bejnar said. The fact that a small, local mall exists does not in itself meet our notability requirements. And the fact that your personal view is that it is important to a small city does not meet wp notability requirements. Nothing you've said, in fact, carries weight when viewed in the context of wp notability requirements. Fails to meet GNG, or any other notability requirement. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those notability guidelines have a heavy systemic bias in favour of major metropolises and IMO should be revised with a broader view so as to respect local notability; not just within Bedford, but within Nova Scotia. Major landmarks of this kind should be included; the deletion of Royal City Centre in New Westminster is what brought this to my attention and what I'm seeing in those guidelines is people from larger mega-cities not "getting" what is notable in contexts other than their own.Skookum1 (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do favor large malls over small malls, for notability purposes. Our notability guidelines also favor topics with significant coverage in RSs, over those without it. And our notability guidelines also favor articles with coverage greater than local coverage, and view as non-notable malls that have only local coverage. And our guidelines favor musicians with albums from major labels, over those with only albums from non-major labels. Such is the nature of our notability criteria. Epeefleche (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) IMO, the community saw this at Sumter Mall, that medium-sized malls in smaller cities are more wp:notable (attract more attention of the world at large) than the same sized mall in a larger area. Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also saw at Sumter Mall that WP:GNG has no bias against local sources. Editors occasionally try to argue that WP:AUD applies to malls, which would require one non-local source, but malls are generally considered at Wikipedia (see CSD A7) to be buildings. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable mall, of local interest only. No significant coverage. No basis for a stand-alone article. --Bejnar (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Easily meets WP:GNG. This is a major mall in the region. It is very clearly notable. Seems a bit silly to override GNG through an arbitrary square footage requirement. -DJSasso (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When @Djsasso: says it easily meets WP:GNG, what reliable sources are being referred to? I see one article from the local Chroncle-Herald, "Changes in store at Sunnyside", and one puff piece from Retail Insider. --Bejnar (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking for sources, especially those specified in WP:BEFORE D1? Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People who like to delete things generally don't look far past a cursory google search; trying to find sources that would validate an article targeted for deletion is left to those who think it should be kept. And often, when they are found by those who think such articles, those wanted to delete them generally find a reason to wave them away...or will demand more...and still not be satisfied.Skookum1 (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have to try very hard to find them. Those were just two that were citing specific parts of the article I readded to it. A simple google searched showed up multiple on the first page alone without even having to dig any further but I am sure if I did I could. Here is a couple more [33] [34] -DJSasso (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

somewhere in the guidelines-that-get-treated-as-"rules" there's a passage about how local newspapers don't count, that global or wider-scale coverage must be used to establish "notability". Again, the systemic bias against smaller places - Bedford'd not even that small, in Nova Scotia terms, by the way - that I've mentioned above, seems to be inbuilt into the guidelines. At one time Wikipedia was more oriented towards "inclusionsim" and expansion/improvement of articles...now just to mention "deletionist" is to get an NPA warning (NPA should be, or was at one time, for direct personal insults, not simply for criticizing errors or apparent agendas at work...).Skookum1 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried looking at sources, and you just cited two more from the same local newspaper. As I said above of local interest only. So far I have found no basis for meeting WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that prevents local sources from being used. They are used all the time to support local politicians. The only mention in guidelines are local events that get covered in local papers only. If I am missing something by all means show me. But local sources have been used for notability of local buildings and politicians for a very long time. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misread what I read, and it may have had to do with a specific topic perhaps to do with certain sports and I know also re some puff pieces on non-notable restaurants in New Westminster a while back (they got deleted) where the cites were all from the local rags...you'd think the Chronicle Herald and whatever the local Bedford paper is, and Atlantic Television, would have more than one notablity-type items on this mall, which is effectively "downtown Bedford", though there is also an older downtown Bedford....and today was wondering if Mumford was even here, which is a complex of malls where the Halifas Peninsula meets the larger mainland just before the Fairview area and is major transit node and more..but no it's not on Mumford and I wonder now if it, too, may have been deleted, along with other major malls in the HRM....Royal City Centre got torched, despite its prominence within that city, based on its square footage alone, it seems (and there was only one sel-referential cite but more could easily be found by serious effort). Myself, I think ther's too much deleting going on by short-sighted and locally-uninformed peole and too much instruction creep and rule-cinching, and lots of us wind up in arenas like this one trying to stop the avalanche of deletions instead of having time to write new articles and improve existing ones. Hard to get new people involved when they find half their own city just not included in Wikipedia because someone from far away who only evaluates things by numbers and arbitrary rules will delete anything they try to create that t hey see/know is important to their community. Do we need a mass slaying to make Sunnyside Mall notable or what?Skookum1 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that nominator removed material from this article before starting this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Interesting. To me that's grounds for disqualification as in "gaming the system". Makes me wonder what was in other articles before they were nominated for deletion....very much so. And suggests that they all need to be reviewed, along with any changes to the guidelines which now read in favour of mega-city malls and give short shrift to local prominence/landmark/ commercial centres in smaller towns and cites; wouldn't be the first guideline that was jerry-rigged to suit someone's particular agenda....Skookum1 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a wp:notability hearing, this is a deletion discussion. A wp:prominent topic for Bedford, Nova Scotia, whether or not it is wp:notable, is not eligible for deletion, as it can be merged if it is not wp:notable. User:Epeefleche should withdraw this nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I would prefer deletion in this case, "redirect" is an acceptable recommendation at Afd. See the information page at WP:Guide to Deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. That "Guide" has lots of useful information about the Afd process, including The decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merge" or "redirect". --Bejnar (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warren, I. (2008, Mar 22). Painter's tiny house finds a home; lavishly painted dwelling is art gallery's most popular feature. Toronto Star. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/439402976.
Sep. 28, 1996, Painter's tiny house rebuilt at mall. The Vancouver Sun, http://search.proquest.com/docview/243024205.
Fillmore, C. (1999). Pete's passion: Pete luckett's enthusiasm and energy are contagious, the perfect formula for supermarket success. Canadian Grocer, 113(3), 12-15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/222854672.
Hanley, W. (2006, Jun 24). Robin hood of fresh food retailing. National Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/330368871.
Margalit, M. (2012, Jul 09). BRIEF: Industrial building to sell halifax mall stake for C$25m. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1024139686.
Redcliff realty management launches maritime retail expansion. (2004, Feb 10). Canada NewsWire. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/454849298. (press release)

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. The material about Pete's Frootique may also be relevant, as apparently this mall was used to work around a Sunday ban on sales, in that Luckett had five small stores in the mall each of which were small enough to be open on Sunday. The first four sources above count at a minimum as one sentence of WP:GNG. The Tribune Business News article was sourced from the Globes in Tel Aviv. These would seem to be a WP:GNG article about the topic, but I will note that the article notes that the owner of Fishman Holdings is also the controlling shareholder in the Globes. There was never any doubt that this topic would be kept anyway, assuming that it was closed on a policy basis. Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as per the consensus below that the subject does not yet meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Jones (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH even as starting QB for a mid major D-I football program. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He was a 2-star high school player who has currently played one season of college football. He might become notable from press coverage if he continues as a starting quarterback at a D-I school, but he doesn't appear to be there yet. The sources that are currently in the article consist of (1) recruiting pages of the type that every decent high school prospect has, and which are not sufficient to show notability, and (2) a profile from the Texas State web site, of a type that just about every D-I college player has, which is not independent, and doesn't count in establishing notability. My search did not turn up significant coverage in mainstream media sources. If I have missed sources, I am willing to reconsider, but for now this looks like a "delete" which is without prejudice if Jones becomes notable in the years ahead. Cbl62 (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject may be notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records), and coverage is lacking in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. This is an excellent example of why we severely discount hometown newspaper coverage of high school athletes, and completely disregard recruiting sources such as Rivals.com and Scout.com in determining the notability of college football players. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to meet notability threshhold for any measure that I can find at this time. Try another wiki--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Jakejr (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W00tstock[edit]

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

Delete for failure to have significant coverage in independent reliable publications. It fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Currently sourced to one deadlink Wired article, and two related sites. All of the mentions I found were of the nature of soandso is appearing or did appear at a w00tstock, there were a couple of videos, and listings for the performances and that's it. No significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, some coverage in reliable sources

Ken Denmead. "W00tstock FTW!". Wired: Geek Dad, 20 October 2009.
Austin L. Ray. "Five Reasons Why You Should Go to w00tstock". Paste Magazine, 19 June 2010.
Mike Selinker. "'Juzzling' Debuts at w00tstock". Wired, 6 May 2010.
Nicole Campos. "W00tstock 2.4 PWNS Thursday Evening Events at Comic-Con 2010". LA Weekly, 28 July 2010
Sheeley, Tyler (2011). Geek vaudeville: creating community through w00tstock (M.A. thesis). University of North Dakota.

And a large number of notable people have performed at the event. Antrocent (♫♬) 06:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Sources include: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Meets GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, and while link to one of the reliable sources might now be a deadlink, that does not change the fact there was coverage in a reliable source.Agent 86 (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Knowles Debs[edit]

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

She received the Fulbright Lifetime Achievement Medal,[40] but I don't see sufficient notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - doesn't really seem to meet WP:PROF. I also suspect that the articles on the college and on prior presidents thereof could use some scrutiny for WP:NPOV and sourcing problems, as well as just plain notability issues. We may have a minor walled garden on our hands. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rephrase your objection, I don't understand what NPOV issues you are referring to. I do not know what a "walled garden" means, is that about incoming links to the article from the institutions she was president of? I also don't see what PROF has to do with her, she was president of two institutions, not a professor at them. Can you also explain why you think the New York Times is an unreliable source. To be honest nothing you mention in your comment applies, it reads like a non sequitor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any signs of a walled garden here. The article on Knowles Debs is based on sources acknowledging both her work at the college and at the museum. The article on the university's current president was written 5 years before he got the job at Manhattanville. As for the article on Molly Easo Smith, it is based on a profile by the New York Times and two other solid sources. A few minutes ago, it didn't even have a wikilink to Manhattanville College so that should put your mind at rest. Pichpich (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it, you are referring to the essay Wikipedia:Walled garden, but I do not see that essay as policy for deletion. Of course articles in the same category link to each other, that should be obvious, but I do not see any advantage to linking people to Kevin Bacon just for the sake of having wider links. Her three or four incoming links are just fine for the reader. Articles only get flagged when they are orphans, without incoming links, and that has nothing to do with deletion policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was president of Manhattanville College, an institution 170 years old with about 2,700 students. I believe this meets WP:ACADEMIC #6. The Fulbright Medal adds to her notability, in my view. Since she's about 83 years old, promotional considerations are negligible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient references to meet WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see how the college could be considered a "major academic institution". The references, other than the Fulbright one, are little more than passing mentions that don't satisfy GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 facts from 5 different sources are mathematically identical to 5 facts from 1 source. How do we determine what is a "major academic institution" and what is a minor one. Academic institutions run from Harvard to your local community college, where is the line? Your argument also ignores her role as president of a museum. The references aren't "passing mentions" as in a list of people in a telephone directory, they are in-context concerning her career. People are not required to have pre-existing full biographies written about them to be notable, our job is to find notable people and synthesize a biography from the disparate sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep- NYT article: "an art historian who is known for her financial acumen as president of Manhattanville College from 1975 to 1985" covered in two other paragraphs and additional articles there. While not the subject of the article, "'known' to the NYT", with detail in multiple paragraphs, should easily pass GNG. Dru of Id (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes the GNG with multiple non-trivial coverage in the New York Times. Similar coverage can be found in other sources such as [41] or [42]. Pichpich (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pembe Candaner[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Reads like an advert. I think it also is in part's copyright. scope_creep talk 20:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page. Pembe Candaner is arguably the MOST widely recognized human resources expert in Turkey. She was the main figure in passing of the new labor legislation in June 2003, law number 4857, one of the core reasons for Turkey's economic boom in the last decade. She is currently lecturing in the most prestigious university in Turkey, Bogazici University. and a member of TUSIAD, which is the utmost exclusive business association in Turkey. It is understandable for foreigners who are not involved in Human resources sector not to recognize her name, however she is the current leading figure in her field, and she has been able to do this is a predominantly muslim society. Even though there are numerous posts on google under her name, plus she authored 3 'bestseller' books, these two links would also help http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=in-the-job-search-game-adecco-ceo-breaks-all-the-rules-2005-03-04 & http://www.pcongresos.com/es/news/tiempo-mujeres.php Nacandaner (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep surely a notable figure in Turkish professional business scene. One of the women protoganist of business world. Umi1903 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiographical MiracleMat (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:BIO. She is an important figure in her field, especially in human resources. Also was a columnist in sabah. Timsah13 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to J Street. Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much later: Appears what is now J Street (advocacy group) was intended target. --Doncram (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Luria (organizer)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Article lists only one reliable source in which subject is mentioned tangentially. Pink Bull 17:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. At best article over-inflates his role in the founding of J-street, at worst it may just be plain out lying about how important he was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say anything about his role in founding of J Street any more, and it consists only of facts, no opinions, no inflation. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has held two significant and noteworthy nonprofit jobs. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Times article quotes him and has his photo. I'd like to see more sources. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep although merging back to J Street may be the better option. And the parenthetical description is terrible. I'm seeing sufficient notability WRT him and J Street to at least have the redirect; what I'm missing is anything biographical other than the capsule. If he were still with J Street I'd go for the redirect in a second; OTOH I don't know that his presence in these other positions is particularly notable. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only references are (1) a non-authoritative site maintained by one of the organizations cited for notability and (2) an article that shows the subject in a picture with others, briefly quotes the subject, and then quickly discounts the subject. The latter is not an article that discusses the subject in any manner that gives rise to notability and further one article is insufficient to confer notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to J Street. I usually hold up the NY Times as the canonical measure of notability, but the cited article only mentions him in passing, once each in paragraphs 17 and 18, and in both cases, only with respect to his J Street activities. And they don't have his photo; they have a photo of four people who work at J Street, one of whom happens to be Luria. The NY Times article is about J Street. Luria himself has no independent notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's mentioned only in passing in the NYTimes, he didn't found any of these organisations, and the page was set up by a single-purpose account. Just being quoted in the media is not enough to meet WP:GNG - there needs to be depth of coverage, and there isn't. AdventurousMe (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adventurous. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The connections between and agendas of lobbying/advocacy groups is important information, and one way of documenting those connections/agendas is through the careers of those who move between them because peoples' views and beliefs generally don't change. It would be difficult to merge the content of this article with the J Street and Groundswell group articles, though I suppose it could be done if the content were to be inserted into both articles. But better just to keep this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No extensive coverage, fails WP:GNG. CesareAngelotti (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werel (Alterra)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Hainish Cycle through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is useful background. I am puzzled at the determination of some people to throw away useful data.

Oh, and it is just one of many. Lots more should go if this one does. --GwydionM (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Planets of the Hainish Cycle#Werel / Alterra. Even though one has to take care to separate out discussion of the subject from that of the other planet Werel in Le Guin's fiction, I fairly easily found one book with some detailed discussion of the subject and other critical works (this, for instance) which give the subject somewhat more than a passing mention. I have added citations to both of these to the article. However, while the subject is definitely mentioned enough in critical works and other reliable sources to make advisable some informative coverage of it on Wikipedia and while there is probably just about enough notability for a standalone article, it would probably be best to use material from the lead and "History" sections here to expand the suggested target rather than maintain a short standalone article. Unfortunately, while the "Science" section is certainly useful and probably accurate, I can't find any sources for the scientific information in discussions on Le Guin - it therefore probably constitutes synthesis which can't be used on Wikipedia. But I would be very pleased if the article creator or anyone else could supply suitable sources. Finally, I was rather irritated by the stereotyped nomination statement, which the nominator seems to have used with only minor changes on about 500 AfDs. When, as in this case, items important to a series' plot have some discussion in critical works and are therefore likely to become search items here, we should, where it exists, have some verifiable information on them. I get the impression (hopefully wrong) that, unless reliable sources are already in an article, the nominator simply assumes that they do not exist and does at most a very cursory search for sources. And the implicit demand for a "current assertion for future improvement of the article" seems curious as, particularly since the deprecation of Template:Expand, I can see no legitimate way of making such an assertion in a mainspace article. PWilkinson (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nominator's inclusion at this list. --173.241.225.165 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above IP's sole contribution to Wikipedia has been spamming multiple links to the above unreliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an extensive body of critical discussion of Le Guin's work, and the nominator has acknowledged making no effort to determine whether the claims in their nomination statement are accurate, GBooks/GScholar search produces enough pertinent results to indicate those claims are unfounded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As no one has advocated keeping in the nearly three weeks that this has been running, there seems no point in relisting again. Deor (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Astels[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that he meets WP:Notability (people) Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—While the TDD book has been cited 270 times fide google scholar, there isn't enough other highly-cited material to warrant notability via WP:ACADEMIC. Looks like an interview here, but beyond that I'm not seeing any significant coverage in WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. The interview doesn't appear to be a particularly reliable source. ~KvnG 03:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Stepanov (polymath)[edit]

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

No independent sources and no support for all the puffery and claims of expertise. Jakejr (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References supporting hyperbolic claims are nonexistent. Requests for citations are long-standing.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources to support any claims in the article. Links to the only 2 sources don't work and it's been tagged for additional sources since 2006. Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources which don't exist here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Livezey Murders[edit]

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

Almost certainly a hoax. Editor who created the article approx. 2.5 years ago now blanked it with the edit summary "this article is a lie and needs to be removed. Also contains address's that should be removed". Neither of the two "sources" (loosely used) in the pre-blanking version cover any major information (or really, much of anything at all, beyond a journalist with a certain name existing and a link that may-or-may-not have covered some other tangentially related information (currently defaults to said site's mainpage). None of the other editors on the page have added any substantial information, just wikifying the page and cleaning up the text already there. A quick glance at google mainly showed me wikipedia mirrors and other online encyclopedias with articles on this, but I could not find -anything- at Google News. If these murders have taken place at all, then they're clearly not known under the name "Livezey Murders". AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zambar, Iraq[edit]

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

I think this is not a real place, or not a real name.

There is a city called Zummar near its proposed location but at the north of Tel Afar and north west of Mosul.

See... w:ar:زمار

Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Oil in the Middle East sources begs to differ as does the Geonames database. It is possible that it is called something else now but it's a verifiable settlement which are always kept. There's definitely something there when you zoom in on google earth, it looks if anything like an industrial facility, like for oil.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the good doctor. It's verifiable as required for geographic notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find anything on the village using Latin alphabet variants (Zambar, Zanbar, Sinbar) or the Arabic (زمبر). Zooming in on Bing maps gives better resolution than Google. There certainly is a small village at this location. Geonames, not necessarily reliable, shows a Zambar at this location and a Jabal Zambar ca. 525 m about 2km to the northeast. The village seems to lie on an intermittent stream draining the mountain. References in books to Jabal Zambar (oder Sinbar; 543 m) place the mountain in this area. Longrigg, 1967 refers to the Zambar structure, presumably Jabal Zambar rather than the village. So the mountain exists, the village probably exists at the location given, but there do not seem to be any reliable sources confirming it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a populated settlement at this location, whatever it is called though, and by a long way they're generally accepted on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started Jabal Zambar, which is certainly real. WP coverage of this area is dismal. In recent days ISIL has been very active in this area. Perhaps we should not be too anxious to delete relevant content, but should put more effort into improving what is there. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does Mahmoudalrawi have any proof to indicate it is not called Zambar??♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I could not find any thing about Zambar, I'm living in Baghdad but my family belong to Rawah in Anbar province. Zambar may be exist as a location. What is there? I have no idea. I found the page of Zambar when I was searching something about Zummar or Zumar which is a significant and important city in the north of Iraq which occupied by ISIS 2 days ago.

Mahmoudalrawi (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND and the nom's inability to support his or her claims. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SAFE-BIDCO[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Missvain (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This 30-year-old agency appears to have enough coverage to pass GNG. I added a couple of references and tidied up the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Cyber Range[edit]

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

Promotional article for university infrastructure site. No significant accomnplishments DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Promotional tone is not a valid reason to delete; I've tagged with ((advert)). Coverage is what's important here not necessarily accomplishments. ~KvnG 14:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If any of the individual articles have issues, they can be nominated separately. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South American Volleyball Championship[edit]

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

Nominating this as well as the articles specific to young men's competitions, girls competitions and all 41 year specific articles in Template:South America Volleyball Championship. None of these articles have significant claims of notability nor are they referenced with reliable sources. Those few that do have references are to primary sources or self-published blogs. RadioFan (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

The rest of the nominated articles
1964 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1967 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1969 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1971 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1973 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1975 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1977 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1979 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1981 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1983 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1985 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1987 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1989 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1991 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1993 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1995 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1997 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1999 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2001 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2003 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2005 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2007 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2009 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2011 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2013 Men's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1964 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1993 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1997 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 1999 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2001 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2003 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2005 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2007 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2009 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2011 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) 2013 Women's South American Volleyball Championship (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)

The rest of the nominated articles

I've collapsed the above as it takes up quite alot of the AFD page, I'll RV once the AFD's closed. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A national notable volleyball event, nothing wrong with that. Kante4 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notable events have coverge in reliable sources. None have been provided and I've not been able to find any. RadioFan (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the years article but keep the main article, very little information is provided in the specific article per year, but the main article is important enough. Brazil, Argentina are powerhouses in Volleyball world. No reason they regional competition should be deleted. Should European Volleyball Championship be deleted too? --Threeohsix (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the main national teams competition in South America as well as other tournaments of this level such as European or Asian Championships. The lack of sources on some articles for years is a valid reason, but several pages listed are referenced such as 2011 Women's South American Volleyball Championship, 2013 Women's South American Volleyball Championship or 2013 Men's South American Volleyball Championship. The analysis should have been done individually. Jonas kam (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reliability of those references is not clear. Several are primary sources and the rest appear to be blogs. RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the three articles mentioned above as an example the sources are from the South American Volleyball Confederation, the Brazilian Volleyball Confederation websites and others. Therefore each article must be individually evaluated. Jonas kam (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are talking about the highest level events for every confederation in volleyball, these are qualifiers to world championships, world cups and are 10% of the World Ranking, that should list them as notable. I also agree that every article should be reviewed individually for references. If not, why not delete all continental championships? --ShadowMkf Talk 17:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music 14 (N.Z. series)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. No indication of charting, in depth reviews or awards. No references. Previously a redirect to the series, but that was reverted by an IP. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable - NealeFamily (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references and hence does not meet WP:RS. No indication of notability given.--Rpclod (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above NealeFamily (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eaton Partners[edit]

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

Spammy article on a non-notable company, the NYT is barely more than repeating the name of the company, the WSJ is in the blogs, the rest is fluff. Looks like COI editing, based on the first edit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not convinced this is notable. The sources are either PR or not at arms' length (such as the alumni magazine), and mention the company either in a short paragraph or just in name. A Google/News search doesn't throw up anything impressive. BethNaught (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This company appears to be one of the largest and most influential in the placement agent industry - obviously an industry that editors believe is important as they have devoted a page to it. Placement agents, while little known outside of the finance industry, are important middlemen between powerful private equity firms and hedge funds and pension funds and endowments. Eaton is listed as one of the players in the placement agent industry. Other firms in this industry also have Wiki entries including smaller firms such as Atlantic-Pacific Capital, Campbell Lutyens, Probitas Partners, and Triago. These pages are substantially similar to this page. Given the controversial nature of these firms, they have tended to be behind the scenes and mainstream media has not covered them extensively. ^[1]. It seems that Wikipedia serves the public good by offering an unbiased description of these firms. Should any of them get accused of wrongdoing, their pages will be there to edit. Ny0043 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the same reasons as those cited by Ny0043. Notability in the private equity and hedge fund industries can be difficult to judge because regulatory constraints mean that they don't publicize themselves in the regular media, but $57 billion raised (as cited in the article) makes them more notable than the smaller firms mentioned by Ny0043. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably a company that is good at what they do, but I'm not seeing any independent or non-routine coverage that would indicate they meet WP:CORP or the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, per Ny00043 and Fiachra10003. --do ncr am 05:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Wilken[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN sadly. Missvain (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Founding a major society could be enough by itself for notability in some cases but there's no evidence that the International Association of Sound Therapy (a redlink) is particularly major. And there's no other evidence of notability for the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with aforementioned comments. No evidence of notability. CesareAngelotti (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creature entertainment[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article. I dream of horses (T) @ 22:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I haven't turned up significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. There are a couple of interviews but they're not good for notability and other than that it's directory listings and passing mentions in local media. BethNaught (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. But as BethNaught said, the sources in the article are clearly insufficient to meet the WP:GNG or otherwise establish notability, and I failed to find any better ones via google. If they continue to work and grow in popularity their time will come, possibly soon, but it is pretty clearly not yet. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Chinese[edit]

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

I tried cleaning this of promotion, but I cannot do so without removing the entire article. I don;t think they;re notable, either--the reliable references are not about the company. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 22:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 23:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to defend my article: Wikipedia is plenty of pages illustrating businesses of middle and small size, in the IT field in particular, that try to distinguish themselves for one detail or another. I carefully verified that the business of this company, as reported in the text and by some of the references, is unique. There are no other cases of partnerships between Chinese authorities (CTA, under CNTA) and privately-held companies for the evaluation of tourism businesses. Moreover, every reference is reliable (which of them is "suspect"?) and, for practical purposes, I didn't add references to articles in Chinese. Last, a good half of the references mention explicitly Welcome Chinese, while the others are a useful tool (to me) to make the context understandable.HeavyRiff (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadanandan Lucsam[edit]

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

Against WP:N - Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 15:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication he has done anything to distinguish himself from other businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Diversion (Animorphs)[edit]

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

Non-notable youth science-fiction pulp. Fails WP:NBOOKS Mikeblas (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at List of Animorphs books, you can see that this book is part of a series of 54. Every single one of them has a lengthy article. They certainly get plenty of page views. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC) blocked[reply]
Redirect to the list, as non-notable. The Satanic Sheik or other interested editors are welcome to trans-wiki the contents to the Animorphs wiki at Wikia: http://animorphs.wikia.com/wiki/The_Diversion. – Fayenatic London 17:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Schwarz[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources like IMDb and the topic's own webpage, of a film producer. Has been involved in enough notable films that I'd be happy to withdraw this if the sourcing could be properly beefed up to reflect substantive coverage in reliable sources, but he's not entitled to keep an unsourced version — especially considering that the article's creator, User:Automatpictures, is also the name of the subject's production company and thus this is a conflict of interest violation as well. Delete if not adequately reffed up by close. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per basic search for citations for the subject, he appears to be notable. Also there is no compulsion or liability for the creator to include all the references. Anyone who is willing to improve the article can go for it. Mr RD 09:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sky Mangel. (Speeding up the process & closing) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Fryer[edit]

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

Non notable actress only starring in 1 tv show, Fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nominated for speedy because of lacking any significance. AlanS (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sky Mangel where there is more (but not a lot more) information about this seemingly minor bit of acting. The child played is described there as an 'infant'. As the character was born in 1987, Miranda played her between the ages of two and four. Give or take. There aren't many who are notable actors at four. Peridon (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sky Mangel per Preidon. We can verify this person's existence and it was a role on a notable show. Plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as above TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Itty Cora[edit]

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

Non-notable novel. Fails WP:NBOOKS as no references are available to substantiate notability. Mikeblas (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the Criteria of WP:BKCRIT. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 14:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more references to the article. The subject is a well known and best selling novel which has had more than 7 reprints in four years. The novel was widely discussed among the literary magazines during its release year and if more sources are required I can add those citations too. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Ebn[edit]

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

No claim to notability. Musician bio article only depending on the artist's own webpage. I would PROD this but I am afraid of other drummers who could beat me with their sticks. (It happened the other day. :) Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources to justify notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New sources added to justify notability.Emdrumma (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2014 (CET)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More new sources and references added to justify notability.Whensimpel (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2014 (CET)
Question: But who the heck are you, the redlink newcomers? We have not seen you around before... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Probably the ones who care... I edited this page before. Emdrumma (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2014 (CET)
Delete as nom TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Needs inline citations, the references are just listed at the bottom and not included in the text at all. The fact that he has recorded and toured with Nannini indicates some notability. No real BLP issue that would warrant deleting it though. Karst (talk) 11 August 2014.

Karst, it is not the inline citations but unsatisfactory sourcing, which is an indication of lack of notability. That is all what this discussion is about. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Withdrawn — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Jungle (Neon Jungle album)[edit]

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

Advert. Only information on album not on Neon Jungle is the tracklist and the ref for the chart position doesn't work, thus I recommend merging. Laun chba ller 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not really advert-y, in my view. It just needs simple editing and expanding, which is to be expected as the album was just released. Here's a source indicating the album's number 48 chart peak in Australia [43]. The album also appears to have entered the UK chart at number 8 [44]. NME has a piece about a cover song on the album that was recorded, it seems, without the original artist's knowledge [45]. There are short reviews of the album here and here, for starters. With that in mind, I'd say enough material is out there to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 18:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Roxxi (2nd nomination) I don't withdraw nominations based on the references posted on the AfDs themselves, but I will be adding the references to the article in my own time. (Of course, if you add them before me, then this can be withdrawn earlier.)--Laun chba ller 17:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded and withdrawn. Off to DYK I go.--Laun chba ller 08:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Woman[edit]

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

I am the article creator; while others have complemented the presentation at a merger proposal, I think this fails the general notability guideline, as only one independent third-party source discusses it at length ([46]), and as of today that's all I can find. It is mostly reliant on primary or first-party sources, with brief mentions elsewhere. I'd make it a redirect, but I don't know the proper avenues for gaining broader consensus as the merger proposal tag was removed from its target page, stating "clear opposition exists". 23W 20:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 23:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 23:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple sources in article. Coverage is about on par with other cartoon episodes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage except one ref comes from a Tumblr page, which could be hardly considered a reliable source. Nominator seems to have a point. Cavarrone 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Dickson[edit]

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

Businessman, who I think it fails WP:BIO. Reads like an advertising page, sources are either dubious at best, or point to 404 pages, or site landing pages, and claims are made which are unsubstantiated, e.g. air brake for cars (like a lorry air brake, a really old invention for cars). Certainly reads like a puff piece. scope_creep talk 13:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Barber II[edit]

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

Seems to have some influence / profile, but WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to my mind this nom should stand or fall according to his significance within National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I note that this has no "People" category for its important officers. I do not know enough of the subject to vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he appears to be high up in NAACP. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in multiple RS = meets notability requirements. LadyofShalott 17:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn after imorvements and comments at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Kenpo[edit]

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

Non notable martial arts style. Nothing to show it meets WP:MANOTE and none of the sources are independent or even mention this style. Jakejr (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete In the world of American Kenpo (I know its a bit of a walled garden) this school is a known entity. The thing is though that with over a 1000 schools (as they claim) there should be some references beyond the primary. My vote could easily flip if a few proper references could be incorporated into the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant independent coverage to show this style is notable. The lineage is not important, for notability purposes, since notability is not inherited at WP. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see any point in continuing this, especially as we've already been round the block once with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Praneet. Salting both titles as well. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Praneet sah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This person is not notable as per the AfC reviews that were done (check page history), and the page was moved to mainspace by a non-AfC participant. While it was under AfC review, the reviewer made statements that the subject was not notable, and from the references in this article, they don't appear to be reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) ) 01:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further, if deleted this article should be salted to prevent recreation. ArcAngel (talk) ) 01:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt if no further refs are found. Feel feel to ping my talk page if WP:RS are found and added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per the comment in this version, and Stuartyeates' comment above. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. I see no actual notability, and certainly nothing that is supported by reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Return to Draft: and salt the article space page. I reviewed this at this permalink and asked the editor on their talk page to stop their cavalier action, an action they have repeated. Fiddle Faddle 06:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis A. López[edit]

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

No evidence for notability. His one book is in only 5 libraries according to WorldCat DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for NN. Very poorly sourced. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's because the books from other libraries are selling as used books now: http://www.bookfinder.com/book/9781933037523/Warrior-Poet_of_the_Fifth_Sun/ It seems you had an overly enthusiastic snarky editor deleting relevant sources last week. Also, the book has been released under creative commons: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL9617908M/Warrior-Poet_Of_The_Fifth_Sun.

How many libraries must a book be in? Also how do you rate said libraries? 2602:304:6898:7650:ACD6:B480:CB48:50E0 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will you add them to article? Amount of links are higher than the content. Noteswork (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the links can be found throughout the previous history of the article, you know that. I'm not adding anything just to go back and forth all day again with some admin on a vendetta.

It's clear if you look at the recent history of the article and the timing of this delete request there is collusion to get this deleted. Your admin was publicly deleting valid sources repeatedly.

You guys are the admins. You've stated it needs to be in a certain amount of libraries as the barometer, state how many that is and either delete the entry or don't.

This entry has been up for years and years. How has that been possible?

Thanks, Luis. 2602:304:6898:2C00:7C2C:F6E6:DF11:7FF (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis, do you have a CoI with this article? If so please leave the discussion to the impartial users. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when that impartial discussion begins. So far you've got a retired librarian making up library numbers as he goes, and another person deleting relevant sources 2602:304:6898:6840:3195:339E:7B97:1F6E (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a search I could not find the Independent Reliable Source coverage required for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. His best known book, Warrior-Poet of the Fifth Sun, seems to have gotten only one independent review; not enough. And I couldn't find any other Independent Reliable Sources about him or his work. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Not enough coverage on reliable third party sources. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muhsin Corbbrey[edit]

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

Non notable fighter who doesn't meet any notability criteria. He had 2 top tier MMA fights and lost them both so he fails WP:NMMA. His kickboxing fails WP:KICK, his boxing fails WP:NBOX, and he's not listed anywhere in the results section of any IBJJF tournament so he fails WP:MANOTE. The coverage is all routine sports coverage (results, fight announcements, etc.) so he fails WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. He seems to have had his chances but could not pull it off.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator's reasoning. He doesn't meet any WP notability standards. Papaursa (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Happy I Could Die[edit]

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

Track does not meet WP:NSONGS as it received very little third-party coverage independent of its parent album The Fame Monster. The following links give coverage independent of the album, but only talk about the song itself briefly:

WP:NSONGS states If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. With that being said, this should be redirected to The Fame Monster. As this song only was discussed briefly in album reviews used, this also fails WP:GNG. It is a plausible search term, but doesn't warrant a separate article. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – You say that the song is covered independently (feebly or not), so it has passed third party coverage. Also per WP:NSONG, this has charted on multiple record charts passing point 1 of the clause. You are correct that coverage of a song per its album review does not pass, but this has other factors associated with it. Its chart prominence. I would have agreed with your redirect had it been some minor South Korean chart, but no. There are 4 major industry sources that validate its prominence. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed third-party references, but fail WP:GNG as they only talk about it briefly. A common mistake made is viewing charts themselves as automatic indicators of notability. Many chart listings only give tracks brief mentions. Prior to the bit on charts, WP:NSONGS states that it is something that might "suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria", with the "aforementioned criteria" being enough coverage independent of the album to expand beyond a stub. While WP:GNG requires an article to have significant coverage from reliable third-party sources, WP:NSONGS requires that plus coverage outside of album reviews. If the links provided went into more detail about the song and its content and such, that would be a different story. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly or not, they are taking about it unlike another song "Teeth" from the same EP. Why would they do that? Unless they felt the need to talk about it and here in it passes GNG clearly. Its not being talked about as part of the album review, its talking about it independently. And chart prominence is important whether you accept or not, and that too in bigger markets. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Destructive nomination. The article has numerous reliable secondary sources giving the subject a level of coverage far beyond a passing mention. There's no doubt that the subject passes WP:GNG. WP:ORG says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." And this is the case. Also, the depth of coverage is not exactly the same as its length. An independent review is almost always more substantial than a WP:routine report, although the routine report is often longer.
- A question needs to be asked: does the song has merits independent of its album? After going through the sources and the reception section in the article, I find the answer is "yes". --180.172.239.231 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Destructive" isn't quite the word. Here's what I see when looking into the references used in the article:

ref#1: Album liner notes. Not a third-party source and no coverage
ref#2: Audio commentary from Gaga herself, a primary source. Primary sources do not add to notability.
ref#3: One brief mention from an album review. No significant coverage, and album review coverage doesn't count as notable coverage for songs.
ref#4: Independent of the album, but only a brief mention.
ref#5: Same answer as ref#3
ref#6: Dead link. Even if it worked, music sheets contain no coverage of a song.
ref's #7 and #8: Same answers as ref's #3 and #5
ref#9: Same answers as ref#4
ref's #10 and #11: Same answers as ref's #3, #5, #7, and #8
ref#12: Does not seem to display anything on song itself
ref#13: One brief listing. No coverage.
ref#14: Same answer as ref#12
ref#15: One brief listing. No coverage, and not a reliable source.
ref#16: Same answer as ref's #12 and #14
ref#17: Only shows an incomplete list due to subscription issues, and the bits that can be seen for free mention nothing of the track.

This is why it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 06:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the contrary, the combination of ref#3 #5 #7 #10 and #11 addresses the song directly and in detail, which is the definition of "significiant coverage" suggested by WP:GNG.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Speechless_(Lady_Gaga_song) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christmas_Tree_(Lady_Gaga_song) --180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the guideline says, if there is sufficient verifiable and encyclopedic content that becomes too much to include in an article on the EP then a separate article is appropriate, and that seems to be the case here. --Michig (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't much to say on this track that can't be said in The Fame Monster. Most sources pertain to the EP itself rather than the song, anyway. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 06:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the album article. As the nominator points out, coverage is only brief and in the context of reviews of the album, therefore WP:NSONG clearly indicates it is not independently notable. Sionk (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have mmissed the part about it being prominent on the record charts also. And it does not have brief notability, a perusing of the sources show they have enough to warrant a separate article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The logic of WP:NSONG seems rather strange to me. WP:ANYBIO says that a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. If the same logic applies to WP:ANYBIO, we will say that person who has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books is not notable at all, since the only coverage of this person occurs in the context of history of that field. Clearly this is not what WP:GNG suggests. WP:GNG states significant coverage need not be the main topic of the source material. In my own view, whether the main topic is the album is not important, while the volume of sourcing is.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the connection. WP:NSONG is about songs and single music tracks. If a song hasn't been released and promoted as a single, it's unlikely to get major reviews or coverage. Occasionally they do, but not in this case. Sionk (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The reqirement that coverage of a song should be independent of album review is just as coverage of a person independent of history.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing a music album to the entirety of history is ludicrous. That's why Wikipedia has developed different 'alternative' notability criteria ...to deal with specific circumstances. Sionk (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Fame Monster. Per NSONGS, coverage of a song that establishes its notability prefers sources that independently discuss the work. The sources here either discuss it as part of its parent album, part of the set list of The Monster Ball Tour, or part of Gaga's complete body of work. Bar the few sources about the Lily Allen thing, but that's a rather weak argument as the only usable info in those articles is that Allen inspired the song. Not exactly what I'd call significant independent coverage. The information about the tour performance is discussed at the Monster Ball article already; I see no reason why the rest can't be slightly condensed and merged into The Fame Monster's article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm going to go with a weak keep due to the charting of the song in Sweden, a major music market which is not included at Lady Gaga discography. I can be persuaded otherwise, since there's considerable overlap with material that could easily be used at The Fame Monster which still makes this article seem almost redundant. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this page is a WP:CFORK, Chase. Sweden's charts could easily be added to her discography page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. My !vote now reverts back to my original choice to merge with The Fame Monster. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment/warning IndianBio, stop changing the heading level like you did twice on this nomination. I don't know if it's accidental or not, but AfD headings should remain at 3 like all other nominations. Nate • (chatter) 20:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mrschimpf: I swear I did not know that the header was changed. It must be Advisor.js acting funny. :( —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. per WP:NSONG, as not a great deal needs to be said about the song, as not a great deal has been said about the song. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of songs. See, for comparison, the topic of song lyrics. --Bejnar (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto Bejnar. TheFrontDeskMust (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Per WP:NSONG and there will be no consensus for a merge or redirect. Noteswork (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not meet the WP:SK criteria and doesn't even meet WP:SNOW. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Curiosity – What's Inside the Cube? layers[edit]

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

This list of layers in a game app is unreferenced trivia and original research, and seems to have been used for tracking progress while the game was active. Now it's all over the main article can suffice. Step hen 00:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic has not been discussed in this level of minutiae by secondary, reliable sources. We don't keep lists at this level of granular detail per precedent with WP:VGSCOPE. Perhaps a Wikia would be willing to host this content. czar ♔ 13:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly trivial. The fact that the layers had different colors/images can be summarized in a few sentences in the main Curiosity article. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per czar; all relevant info is in the main article anyways. Ansh666 19:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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