< 29 August	31 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 delete. Tone 11:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh economic review 2014[edit]

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

This isn't actually an encyclopedia article, but simply an almanac-style listing of various economic statistics (and, for that matter, one without any actual reliable sources for any of them.) There might be a place somewhere on the Internet for content of this type, but Wikipedia isn't it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be PROD, rather than AfD. --» nafSadh did say 01:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:15, 3 September 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. Tone 11:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Young (actor)[edit]

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

Outside of Little Nicky, none of these films are that notable. Seems to be just a small part actor with nothing notable (nothing wrong with having pages for small part actors, as long as they are notable) Wgolf (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also has been tagged for notability since 2008. Wgolf (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - roles do not meet WP:ENT and there does not appear to be coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 20:37, 4 September 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ManaBus.com[edit]

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

A clear case of too soon. PROD was removed Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, TOOSOON. Much of the info appears self-promotional rather than encyclopedic. When (if?) there is ever enough coverage to satisfy SIGCOV then the article can be recreated. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As part of the Inter-City group - no merit by itsself NealeFamily (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what?. Please specify what content from Manabus should go to InterCity (New Zealand), which I assume is the article you meant, and where this content should go. Without this, merge votes are best ignored. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC) pingNealeFamily (talk · contribs)[reply]
- Whatever is done, certainly not merge with Intercity (New Zealand)Nankai (talk) 10:38, 4 September 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. Tone 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson (police officer)[edit]

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

This person is significant for his role in one event: the aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown. Other than that, he is an unremarkable police officer. The coverage in external sources consists of:

Local coverage announcing his hiring.
Local news stories mentioning him in passing (not the main subject; many police officers and pretty much all police chiefs in the United States have this level of coverage).
The Michael Brown shooting.

Even his role in that one event is minor, and our articles on the event only mention him briefly. — RockMFR 22:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination: given his very minor role in the Thomas Jackson shooting & aftermath I don't think worth redirecting.TheLongTone (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above & WP:BLP1E. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's only notable for one event = WP:BLP1E. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would be better if we included the names, tenure, and backgrounds of all prominent municipal officials, such as mayors and police chiefs. The national spotlight of the Brown shooting only adds to reasons to include that data somewhere in WP. --Darmokand

(talk) 07:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His department is far too small to confer inherent notability. Otherwise notable for a single event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 4 September 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Fat[edit]

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

effectively unsourced BLP The Banner talk 21:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references need to be improved, but he is a well-known Hong Kong actor who played the villain in numerous films. -Zanhe (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - massive filmography. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but effectively unsourced... The Banner talk 15:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but an unsourced filmography is certainly not a problem within a BLP. In fact the partly unsourced paragraph "Performing experience" could be a problem, so it could be trimmed and we would be left with an acceptable BLP stub. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have since been added.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:48, 6 September 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. Tone 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahim Hirji[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Sourced mainly by self-generated corporate content and press releases. There is also an interview, which does not count as independent of the subject, and one (1) newspaper article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources, and too much bias and promo. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious delete. WP:PROMO WP:GNG WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and Clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:48, 2 September 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 a7, kid with a website, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sirsho Banerjee[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 21:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I put a tag on it earlier but it kept on getting removed. Only "ref" is to Twiter. Wgolf (talk) 21:11, 30 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Per Speedy keep criteria 1, "An example of this includes posting a nomination in response to a proposed deletion but advocating a keep position." (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

California Massage Therapy Council[edit]

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

declined prod. i am the creator. if someone feels this is nonotable enough to propose deletion, the least i can do after deprodding is bring it to AFD for them. I believe the organization is notable. original prod: "Nonnotable local authority of no significance or academic value, no refs other than organization". the last part is not true, presumably as the refs werent noticed due to not being formatted. ive fixed that (no thanks to the WMF for bringing down the toolserver site for reflinks!) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per SK#1: "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. An example of this includes posting a nomination in response to a proposed deletion but advocating a keep position. (If you dispute the deletion of a prod-ed article, just remove the prod-tag, sometimes nobody will want to pursue deletion of the article via AFD anyway.)" --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 1 September 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. Tone 11:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On My Own (Miley Cyrus song)[edit]

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

An example of WP:CFORKfail and again another song article which fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. There is absolutely no independent third party coverage except minor mentions in album reviews and those taken from the album's own liner notes. Minor chart placement and most of the song details being taken from the album liner notes. The first para actually is in no way related to the article at all. This should be deleted or best, redirected to parent album, Bangerz for a plausible search term. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Unambiguously fanpov, unambiguously promotional. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mentions in album reviews do not confer notability. I also share concerns about the non-neutral coverage. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 31 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Li M'Ha Ong[edit]

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

A speedy delete tag was placed on this claiming its a hoax. Given the article has existed for six years and that it does not appear to be OBVIOUSLY a hoax, I declined speedy and am taking it to AfD instead. Article has no sources and looking at it, I see at least the possibility that it might be a hoax. Safiel (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See fr:Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/30_août_2014#Soup.C3.A7on_de_canular : Li M'Ha Ong = Lime à ongle = in english : nail file. --Nouill (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Indeed, the original French article has just been deleted, or rather, moved to where it belongs, i.e. fr:Wikipédia:Pastiches/Li M'Hâ Ong ("WP:Pastiches" meaning "WP:Hoaxes"). I am sure you appreciate that in French, Li M'Hâ Ong is a droll "Chinese transcription" meaning nail file (no connection whatsoever with the Chinese pirate Limahong). The French page was created in June 2004, as a full-fledged article from the start, by user:Lamdan (who never contributed anything else in connection with China), which implies that the only citation in the article most probably is absolute bogus, added up by user:Bozon de U as an afterthought to provide some credibility ("Monde de la Bible, special issue Chrétiens en route vers Pékin, 07/08 2008 (in French)"). --Azurfrog (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax that managed to stay unnoticed for an unfortunate long time. I couldn't find anything about his supposed work, "Treaty of Seeds and Stars", and while the translator, "Melchior Nuñez", likely existed, any article I can find with both his name and that of Li M'Hâ Ong appears to have been copied from WP. Upon reflection, there's no way this article could be genuine. Esprit Fugace (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 31 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. Tone 11:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table Mountain Shadowkite[edit]

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

Article is borderline promotional, created by User:Liquidationchannel who has same name as the organisation which is the sole distributor of the stuff. Also WP:GNG, can find nothing of any substance to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been speedied as pure promotion. I've removed the purely promotional sales page link used as a ref. Vsmith (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Purely promotional. No mention outside of commercial advertising. Unsourceable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - Currently the promotional parts seem to have been removed. Darylgolden^(talk) 12:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the promotional stuff leaves this article completely unreferenced, since the term appears to be one company's trade name for this mineral. I can find no reliable references, and believe it fails WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 4 September 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. Tone 11:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Meister[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate in a primary election, which is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL — candidates who have not already held notable offices only qualify for articles on Wikipedia if you can demonstrate that they were already notable enough for other things that they already qualified for a Wikipedia article before they became candidates, but that hasn't been properly demonstrated here (even his work as a lawyer is sourced entirely to mentions of his law career in coverage of the candidacy, rather than to coverage of his law career in its own right.) Delete. (I could accept redirection to the election as well, but given that he didn't even win the primary and thus wasn't the candidate on the ballot in the general, I don't see what substantive purpose that would serve. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a CV and he is not notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. I do not see evidence documenting his biographical sketch to justify a WP:GNG claim. N.B. that this may be partly due to linkrot. It is concievable that during his campaign sufficient content was in the public domain that an article may be justified. I just don't see evidence of that content now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 31 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 Simon Munnery#Television. Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either/Or (TV series)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I was initially going to merge it into Either/Or but having looked at that article, I do not believe that it deserves a mention at said article per WP:UNDUE. Laun chba ller 16:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no coverage from reliable secondary sources, and it very much would be WP:UNDUE to merge into the book's article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG and lack of WP:RS per nom. and above comment. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Simon_Munnery#Television. I can't really find anything to show that this show is ultimately notable enough for an article, but I think it'd be a valid enough redirect to the host's page. From what little I can find, he appears to be the one thing about the show that stood out to most people so a redirect to his page would be reasonable enough since it's already listed in his TV section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 31 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 nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gulara Aliyeva[edit]

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

~~I put a prod on it-but looking at this, I can't find any info about this guy online. Wgolf (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn[reply]

Comment-also not sure about notability either, says he is famous, but for what? Wgolf (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no coverage from reliable secondary sources found. Kierzek (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC) now moot.[reply]

Comment - Not a guy but a gal. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha okay thanks.Wgolf (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and look for sources in Azerbaijani, Russian and other regional languages. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment-Okay thanks-problem was that the article was just really poorly written and I couldn't find anything meanwhile. I was just unsure of what to do then. Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now? Are you sure of what to do? Withdrawing the nomination could be a good start. Then we need someone to translate from Az. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Withdrawing. And again an AFD appears to have helped get some attention to helping a article. (Some of these foreign names are just hard to find info on!) Wgolf (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 31 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 speedied as blatant campaign brochure. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Maguire (Canadian politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Political candidate claiming to be notable solely because he is a candidate. This is of course incorrect, especially when the office is 'mayor'. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This version is even more blatantly a campaign brochure than the first one was — in fact, it appears to have been copied and pasted wholesale from his own campaign website, with only minor stylistic adjustments for Wikipedia formatting. But he still doesn't qualify for an article on Wikipedia just for being a candidate for office, and this still doesn't actually demonstrate any preexisting notability (or source it anywhere but his own website, an invalid primary source even if the article wasn't just a straight copy-paste of its content.) No prejudice against the creation of a properly sourced new article in October if he wins election to the mayoralty — but he's not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime, and even if he does win he still won't be entitled to just restore and keep this without a massive content and referencing revision. I'm speedying this as a blatant advertisement. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 30 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scum (rapper)[edit]

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

Verification search shows a lack of coverage where he is mentioned in sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mr. Guye kindly have the decency to state your rationale for nomination appropiately. The one you presented above did not appeared contructive to me. What effort did you made to verify its notability before its nomination? Wikicology (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: Whoops, sorry I misjudged the independent source thing. Still, there are no RS and little coverage in sources that I found while searching for RS. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are welcome.

Keep: article meet WP:MUSICBIO. I found this [1] [2] and this. Wikicology (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. @Wikicology: All your sources just cited are not reliable third party sources and do not bolster the subjects notability at all. STATic message me! 21:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: STATicVapor This is a reliable source.Wikicology (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is a reliable source, but it does not count as coverage of him. He is not the subject of the article and he is mentioned once in passing. That is only listing him among a few other artists that performed at a music festival. Let me stress that it is significant independent coverage in reliable third-party sources that establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 22:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the sources bar one aren't reliable so I'd say this pretty much fails WP:GNG & WP:N. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as outlined above, there are passing mentions but not much in terms of significant coverage which is what is required by WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:03, 1 September 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) Natg 19 (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky Third Chapter[edit]

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

Fancruft-filled and I do not see a claim to significance. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:34, 30 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) 02:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a The Legend of Heroes and a Trails in the Sky articles in existence, so at worst, it should be a redirect or merge. Deletion isn't the right route for something with multiple logical redirect targets. Haven't done searching to see if there's enough out there for a "Keep". Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky - Along with the two other games in this sub-series, there is sufficient notability, but I doubt there are enough sources for standalone articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advocate that for the first two. I created the second one - it's received a ton of coverage because they're translating it to English, and it's pretty much the last English PSP game. Definitely doesn't warrant a merge. The first one was translated and released already, and definitely has enough coverage. (http://www.metacritic.com/game/psp/the-legend-of-heroes-trails-in-the-sky ) Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good rescue work by Sergecross73. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable third party sources. (It also goes by the subtitle "The Third", or "Sora No Kiseki", it's Japanese name, FYI.)

Comment - I've entirely rewritten the article, and reworked many sources into the article. It's still not great, but its a far cry from the bare-bones, unreferenced version at the time of nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as User:Sergecross73 has added a large number of RS to the article and there is no longer any doubt that it meets the GNG. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A case of what to do before coming to AfD. While the sourcing wasn't available in a WP:VG/RS search alone, there is certainly significant coverage for the general notability guideline with the expanded search terms (except that Polygon forums link, which should be struck as user-generated and unreliable). However, the sourcing is hella weak, with not nearly enough for a full-featured article as of now. As such, I would recommend a merge to the series article when the editors are ready. As for this AfD, the consensus is a clear keep with a notice to the nominator to consider redirection to a quality redirect target (the series) before engaging AfD. czar ♔ 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, hadn't noticed the forum link. It didn't look like it when I looked at it on a mobile phone. Oh well, I don't believe I ever used it in the actual article clean up. And yeah, I was going to say something to the nominator, but it looks like he's been warned up and down his talk page about flawed deletion nominations...so I didn't bother, I think he probably knows by now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 6 September 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. Tone 11:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Meme Theory[edit]

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

I doubt this is a thing. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Exactly two hits on google for "trash meme theory", both of which point to enWP. Hoax? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This DELETE should be obvious. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oh, for the love of God. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and fails WP:V.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:57, 5 September 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. Tone 11:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repercussion (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, obvious COI from creator, does not meet WP:NF or WP:N in general BOVINEBOY2008 15:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-the only thing notable about it IMO is that it was shot in just 3 hours! (which yes as amusing as that sounds, delete, unless if somehow this manages to be nominated for an Oscar or something...yes being sarcastic about it getting nominated) Wgolf (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or Userfy per failing WP:NFF... an unreleased film whose production does not have the coverage to meet WP:GNG. If this changes after release, the article can be undeleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFF. Cult of Green (talk) 01:20, 1 September 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. Tone 11:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Torri[edit]

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

(Self-)promotional article about a ~~thoroughly~~ utterly non-notable artist. The only verifiable "source" in the article, which isn't even close to being a reliable source, is a web site that describes itself as a site that "provides artists and photographers with sales and marketing tools to help simplify and accelerate their careers". A sort of Facebook for artists where they can write their own CV. Thomas.W ^talk 12:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom has said all that needs to be said Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be notable as a tattoo artist. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References demonstrating notability under either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST do not seem to exist; the article in the local paper would be one, but we'd still need at least one more. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Object to the word "thoroughly" in the nomination--I think I patented this as a modifier for "non-notable". ("Profoundly" too, though "utterly" is available.) Since I Englished some of the article I can't vote here, as an involved editor. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, of course you can vote, lots of editors work on the article during an AfD and still vote. You can't close the discussion. I think you know all this and you don't want to vote "delete" because you're utterly thoroughly inordinately completely and unequivocally proud of your Englishing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it's not a vote. Gotcha. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above me - Promo bs that clearly belongs elsewhere. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey. Davey2010. Mind your manners, pal: I Englished this shit. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drmies - Oh god I'm so sorry!, I take that back!, Had I known you had cleaned/rewrote it I obviously wouldn't of made that comment (That'll teach me for not checking the history!), Not sure why I made that comment since it's not promo, Jeez I feel awful now!, I'm so sorry, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much appreciated. I mean, a polished turd is still a turd, but it's, you know, polished. Shiny. Now, if you could squeeze out a "keep", that'd be great--I don't seem to have one in me. :) Drmies (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Keep per Drmies's improvements and also passes GNG and ARTIST AND the fact I feel pretty awful right now!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, for chrissake, Davey2010, don't you know when you're being joshed? I mean, if Drmies is constipated he can see a different kind of doctor. And if you too are joking, at least go back to delete now.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Dude I've had 3 hours sleep and havent been with it for the entire day!, Somehow I missed the fucking joke entirely! .... Now I do feel like a complete twat! –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        There were more word plays per square letter in Drmies's comments than you can shake a log at. Apparently, he thinks this discussion is an extension of his talk page. Unfortunately, I often edit with only 3 hours sleep. I hate it. I'm so tired I'm afraid I'll block the wrong editor. Now go get some rest, and you'll feel better all around.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO WP:GNG. I had previously nominated for Speedy Delete but this was rejected. At that time the article was so poorly written that I thought it was nonsense. Now I think this is Speedy Delete A7, but an AfD delete is fine as well. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly delete... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:40, 1 September 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 per WP:CSD#G11. Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabri brothers india[edit]

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

Several major issues. The content appears to be an outright copyright violation of sabribrothersindia.com. However, even if the copyright issues were cleared up, there is no evidence currently that it passes the test of notoriety per WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, there are currently no Independent sources. Also, keep in mind, this band isn't to be confused with the Sabri Brothers, as the author has clarified on the talk page (I made that mistake initially). BMIComp 10:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd commented on that and missed that you'd done the same! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. There might be coverage in other languages, but I'm not pulling anything up when it comes to English language sources. This is fairly telling, as there is usually some sort of English language coverage for India-related topics. I can't find anything that would be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'll alert WP:INDIA to see if any of them can find anything in other languages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Also I believe some sockpuppetry is going on between at least 3 different users. I found 3 different users last night contributing to similar articles. I'll put up a report. Wgolf (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-put up the report just now. Wgolf (talk) 14:30, 30 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) 08:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alois Hitler, Jr.[edit]

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

Subject is not notable outside of being a relative of Adolf Hitler. Mr. Guye (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; Alois Hitler, Jr. lacks notability on his own outside of his relation to Adolf Hitler. WP:NOTINHERITED Upjav (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, there is no evidence of his own notability. Walentinee (talk) 11:05, 3 September 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessel Mark Magsayo[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - not even close to meeting WP:NBOX. Already has been speedy deleted for notability and copyvio (I've removed some in this version). Peter Rehse (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios keep getting reverted.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NBOX - No notable accomplishments at senior level. Article has text literally copied from the sources mentioned. - Taketa (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX. I checked and the "Best boxer" award was for a city sponsored tournament and that's hardly enough to show notability. There are also COI and copyright issues. Papaursa (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable; maybe someday; if so, can be re-visited. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Fails NBOX. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NBOX WP:GNG. At best WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:32, 31 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 Marathon (media). As SmokeyJoe says: non-notable intersection of Star Wars and movie marathon. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars marathon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I declined PROD as article previously survived AfD as a no-consensus. However, article is little more than a neologism, so I will take back to AfD. Safiel (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to garner passing third-party mentions but doesn't pass the significant hurdle. --EEMIV (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets WP:GNG since many sources says there are watching marathons. Frmorrison (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and it's not defamatory while probably giving someone some small pleasure. Superfluous information is still information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.121.35 (talk • contribs)

"It's informative" and "it doesn't hurt" are not compelling reasons to retain content. This hooks back into the underlying policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --EEMIV (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of funny to say as Wikipedia is definitely a collection of information that can be subjectively considered informative or harmless or both... depending upon who one asks. What IS compelling, no matter the topic being discussed, is that notability is found through coverage and a suitable stub is not contrary to policy or guideline. And, as this article has a very specific inclusion description set forth in its lede, it is not indiscriminate ( See WP:Discriminate ). That said, I do not think this short article would over-whelm the base topic at Star Wars. Merge and set a Redirect to a new section at Cultural impact of Star Wars unless expanded to show real-world relationships... through wider coverage, recognition, and analysis and commentary of the topic in secondary sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete - It's nothing more than a specific type of binge-watching. I can't find anything that suggests these marathons are anything particularly notable/significant/different. Would do better redirected to Cultural impact of Star Wars. moluɐɯ 22:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Star Wars. It's pretty much just focuses on a specific movie series, which can be covered in a few sentences in another article. However, just for future reference, if there is a TV show or a movie that has an ability to be watched in a marathon (in which the act of doing the marathon becomes a cultural phenomena), then perhaps that could warrant its own article. Such as, for example, the TV series 24, which hypothetically, people might watch it for 24 hours straight, which could conceivably be a cultural phenomena independent of the actual television series itself. The key way to distinguish a television marathon or movie marathon from the actual movie/show itself (specifically, to create another article about the act of the marathon), is that people are doing the marathon for any reason other than that they like the show. Star Wars marathon fails this litmus test, because people only watch it because they really like Star Wars. A 24 marathon would pass (if covered in significant sources), if the people watching it did the marathon because a season of 24 is 24 hours long, which is the length of a day, so people would watch it not because they like the TV show, but because they want to spend all day watching TV. Yet this test only precludes having its own article, because the Star Wars marathon should be included in the main Star Wars article, for example, in a few sentences, as it is (barely) covered in secondary sources. If it had more coverage, it could have its own section. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Movie marathon exists.--Coin945 (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that article suffers from the same badness as the subject here. moluɐɯ 20:01, 29 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, Sandstein 08:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to one of the suggested places. There's just not that much to say about it. Businesses stage marathons and fans watch them. Movie marathon is so gloriously awful I've nominated it for oblivion. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a good idea. Otherwise delete and redirect it to the appropriate place. Protonk (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Sure, the phrase exists, but so do a lot of other types of binge-watching parties — so we don't require a separate article about this phenomenon as a topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Star Wars is very notable, so why not this? RWCasinoKid (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. moluɐɯ 19:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coin945 Movie marathon does exist that includes Star Wars and to Clarityfriend that do you meant by "suggested places". 174.91.75.150 (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or Delete) to (a better) Marathon (media) article or to the main Star Wars one. There is no need for every franchise and TV series to have its own X Marathon page.--Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to movie marathon. This is a non-notable intersection of star wars and movie marathon. Trivia. A few events, no secondary source coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:07, 11 September 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 nomination withdrawn due to commenter locating more substantive claim of notability than what was present in the article as written. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Frasier[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is having been the first female and first openly gay sheriff to serve in one particular county, which isn't a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL (first in the entire state I might accept, first in one specific county no) — and with only two news articles and something that claims to be her own résumé on her own consulting firm's site, the sourcing present here isn't nearly solid enough to WP:GNG it instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:POLOUTCOMES. [3] shows there are at least 122 news articles about this person. And the nominator seems to have made a significant mistake: The person was the first female sheriff in the entire state, verified by [4]. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the article says — it specifically says that she was the first female and gay sheriff of Travis County in particular, not the first in all of Texas — so it was the creator's mistake and not mine. But consider this withdrawn nonetheless. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 30 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Boyles[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage in sight, of a person notable primarily as a local activist and unsuccessful candidate for elected office. Further, the article was created by User:Thewadester, raising a high prospect of WP:COI. Doesn't get past any of our subject-specific inclusion guidelines for anything listed here, and doesn't get past WP:GNG for the sourcing provided to support it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant failure of WP:NPOL. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:NPOL WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:33, 31 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 – article improved; speedy close by nominator. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Rubinstein[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Various people appeared on the Desert Island Discs program. Are all of these people notable? Is Mr. Rubinstein anymore notable than the others? (E.g., I am skeptical about the whole lot, but this one is a good place to start.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Added: My skepticism about the "whole lot" is poorly worded. I really mean those people with only a DID episode as an indication of notability. 16:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly some of the others are notable for other things besides this (David Attenborough, frex), but if appearing on the program is a person's only substantive claim of notability then I say delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anyone who appeared on DID was clearly notable, not only by virtue of having an entire BBC documentary, broadcast nationally, made about them, but also for whatever reason they were chosen to appear - we just don't know what that is, yet. I'm awaiting a transcript of the programme, in order to establish what that was in this case. Not only that, but there have been well over 2970 people (2992 episodes at the time of writing; a very small number of people have appeared twice) featured on Desert Island Discs. We have an article on each (with just a few still to be written; I did another four yesterday). It would be farcical to have an article about all but one (or even all but a handful). Even WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS specifically refers to sets of a articles (such as those about DID castaways, of which this is one) as a likely exception. To quote: "If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OP reply to Andy: In Rubinstein's case, we have a WP:BLP1E/WP:1E situation. If he is clearly notable, where are the other sources that show he was distinguished? The FAQ page for DID says: "How do you decide on who to invite on the programme? Castaways are people who’ve played a significant role in their field or in society and who have a story they’re happy to share...." At least shoeblack Vivian De Gurr St George wrote a book. But did Rubinstein? – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe I addressed that in my previous comment, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere fact of having been on a radio or TV show does not, by itself, confer enough notability to keep an article that is sourced only to a primary source evidencing their participation in the show. We do not, for example, automatically keep an article about every single person who ever competed on The X Factor or Britain's Got Talent; we only keep articles about the ones who can be reliably sourced as actually passing a notability guideline for things they accomplished before or after appearing on the show. So while you certainly have a valid point that Rubinstein might have been chosen to appear on the show because he was already encyclopedically notable for other things, the time for an article about him is when you can properly source what those other things actually were — not when the only substantive thing you can say about him is that he appeared on the show. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - XFactor and BGT are multi-player game shows, not documentaries, about the sole person discussed on them. Nor is BBC documentary about a person a primary source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "primary source" is not the fact of the program's existence, but the fact that the only cited source for the program's existence is its listing on the program's own website (and even that doesn't provide any substantive information about Rubinstein, but merely mentions his name and lists the albums he picked.) Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for consistency. This stub doesn't hurt WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Consistency" is not a requirement of WP. Reliable sourcing, and the passing of our actual notability criteria, are. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That part was covered by Andy above. Waste of space and time to repeat that more sources will come, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consistency better serves our readers, and improves the encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that were true, we wouldn't have any notability criteria to distinguish notable from non-notable members of the same class of topic. We would, for example, have to keep an article about every single writer who ever published a book, regardless of the quality of sourcing that could or couldn't actually be provided, as long as it was possible to verify that the book existed. But that's not how it works — no matter how many books you can verify the existence of, the writer only gets into Wikipedia if you can actually point to reliable source coverage which verifies that they pass one or more of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. So some writers get in here and some don't — which is inconsistent by your definition, but fully compliant with the purpose of an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Per the one source in the article, the BBC link[5], the programme including Stanley Rubinstein is not available. Per the BBC FAQS regarding this series, that although "More than 1450 programmes - from 1951 to the present day - are now available on the website", that "Unfortunately some programmes were never archived or may be missing for legal or other reasons."[6] So, IMO there isn't much reason to think more sources will be available regarding this man. In the unlikely event that a lot more information becomes available, an article can be spun off at this time. For now he can be listed in the parent article. Parabolooidal (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, an opinion essay that doesn't have consensus, is being used here again for keeping another non-notable stub article. I just don't see how creating a bunch of fragmented stubs referring to Desert Island Discs, when the parent article doesn't explain any of this and remains in poor shape, helps the encyclopaedia. I've asked Pigsonthewing on his talk page. Gerda Arendt, could you explain more thoroughly your thinking on how this "consistency" better serves our readers? Parabolooidal (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I've replied to you there. There is little chance of the parent article describing the lives of 2900-odd people. In what way is this stub "fragmented"? Now that you have declared Desert Island Discs to be in poor shape, I look forward to your improvements to it; but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - See my explanation from the BBC website's reasons for omissions of individual items from this series above. Parabolooidal (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - That as no bearing on the future expansion of this article, at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being chosen to appear on Desert Island Discs is prima facie evidence of notability as the idea that someone famous enough to be invited to appear on this show would vanish without trace is absurd. In this case, it is easy to find more information about the subject, who was a senior partner of the law firm Rubinstein Nash & Co, which continued the family business of Rubinstein Leggatt & Co, founded at Grays Inn in the 19th century. Andrew (talk) 13:33, 31 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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten (programming language)[edit]

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

Article about a programming language that fails notability. No source. Only external link to the programming language's home page. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Can't seem to find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I'm not seeing any third-party coverage at all. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG lack of WP:RS. ---Jersey92 (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find any evidence that is is covered in anything approaching a reliable source, and the title isn't suitable to warrant a redirect to concatenative programming. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:39, 1 September 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 Wikicology (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Mahajan (blogger)[edit]

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

Unremarkable blogger. Mr. Guye (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It did take some digging, as the man shares his name with a TV personality, but I did find enough to show that Mahajan is notable as a whole. His books have received coverage (as well as being in about 200-300 libraries) and Mahajan has also received coverage in other aspects as well. His work also seems to be fairly frequently cited as a RS ([7], [8]) as a whole, although that's sort of an aside since being a RS doesn't automatically mean notability. I'm more mentioning that because I'm finding some evidence that his books are used in college courses as textbooks ([9]) as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Nice work by Tokyogirl79. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the nomination, Tokyogirl79 has both added reliable sources to the article, demonstrating notability, and removed promotional content. Nice work. --Mark viking (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per above comments. Walentinee (talk) 10:57, 3 September 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Steele (Ontario politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage in sight, of a person notable only as an unsuccessful electoral candidate — which is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this fellow doesn't come close to meeting notability guidelines. PK T(alk) 13:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable subject. Lack of coverage, couldn't find a reliable source with coverage of him. ///EuroCarGT 02:24, 8 September 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Capellán[edit]

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

Minimally sourced (only one of the "references" here is substantive coverage of him in a reliable source) WP:BLP of a person notable only as a superintendent for a local school board and as an unsuccessful candidate for election to the state legislature. Neither claim gets him past any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion rules, and the volume of sourcing doesn't put him over WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not going to get to notability via WP:ACADEMIC, don't see a path via WP:GNG either. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources of candidate who lost a race for the state legislature. Tiller54 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't appear to meet any specific notability criteria or the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:37, 10 September 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharad Borkar[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have 'non-trivial' coverage in 'multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources', therefore it fails WP:SPORTCRIT along with WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There's no separate section on "Volleyball" at Wikipedia:Notability (sports), so, WP:SPORTCRIT should be valid here.

There's some claim of notability in the article, when said, "[..]also representing India in many matches from 1974-1985[..]", but it appears to me, a self-made claim, because I could not find any evidence to verify the claim.

Subject basically was a gov. employee, and a volleyball player who played for some university and an Indian state, but did not attract any media coverage. By SPORTSCRIT, it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Am I missing something? -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I put a prod up for it earlier but it kept on getting deleted by the creator as well as a logged off user. Anyway going for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that while reviewing history of the page, blp-prod, however, was not a valid tag to this article. It is not a biography of a 'living person', subject is dead. It'd help, if you could explain/expand a little your !vote. Cheers! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment-ha it didn't say that at the time. But yeah I'm not sure something bout it seems off. Wgolf (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not meet the notability criteria WP:NSPORT.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saga Studios[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not WP:NOTABLE, Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the result was delete over six years ago (did the redirect somehow prevent this?) and nothing has been added to this unsourced stub since then. Doesn't seem to have made a ripple in any reliable sources (or with historians or film scholars) since then so it is time for it to go. MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should note there is one mention of the studio having made a Godzilla style film but that is hardly enough to build an article on. MarnetteD|Talk 04:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (sorry MarnetteD, editors need to ignore the 2008 AFD, which was apparently for a modern video game development studio by this same name. THIS Saga Studios is a Danish film production company that produced 81 films in the 38 years from 1936 (pre-WWII) through 1974. I'd be surprised if there was no Danish coverage at all. Books? History texts? Old news articles? If sourcable as part of Danish film history, we'd have an historic notability with no expectation that a company apparently disbanded in 1974 would remain in the news for 40 more years. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for clearing up the stuff about the old AFD. If the company was at all important in the history of film it should have received some comment in some "History of" research. Many film companies have come and gone. Just because they existed does not men that they meet WikiP's standards of WP:NOTABILITY. Just saying. MarnetteD|Talk 12:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A check of the Danish Wikipedia shows that they do not have an article for Saga Studios. Some of the companies films are listed though. Christian75 has done well in finding one mention but - to quote from WP:COMPANY "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of "significant coverage" in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I only see "incidental coverage" from this source or any other at this time. MarnetteD|Talk 12:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they will one day. Maybe not. There are dozens of thousands of topics covered here that are not covered in smaller other-language Wikipedias, so what other Wikipedias do not cover is a non-argument. We do have WP:NTEMP to consider for companies no longer in existence. No topic need always remain in the news... and this is 40 years later. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

comment - It will take time to find sources because you have to filter out all the articles which just add production: Saga Studio... But one source here from a Danish book [10](http://books.google.dk/books?id=mVtxIstd5TQC&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=%22saga+studio%22+berlingske&source=bl&ots=dVOU7gRy_5&sig=XFLja1Dth_WbXL3Zfc5WfFvdccg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rGf4U_rMJeTMyAORpIGgBQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=saga&f=false) Its called Saga Studio, Saga Studios and Saga studierne (danish) and just Saga. Christian75 (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub -- Saga Studio was a significant producer of Danish films from 1942 to 1974 -- enough to be mentioned in the Danish Encyclopedia. (It produced the the comedy hits of Dirch Passer and the iconic Danish film Soldaten og Jenny). I expect there are plenty of non-internet book and journal sources. However, if we have consensus to delete, I suggest it be redirected to the studio's founder John Olsen (filmmaker). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep of a suitable stub per being an historic part of the early film industry of Denmark. And I do agree that a redirect to John Olsen is a reasonable alternative to flat out deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:48, 25 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 02:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs alot of work doing but that by no means is a reason to delete, Simply needs some TLC and some hard digging, Also in 2mins I found a book [11] so notability is there - Just takes some time finding. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Created that many films = notable (there will exist sources, although as noted mostly will be off-line due to time period or hard to find for non-Danish. --do ncr am 21:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company behind a substantial number of Danish blockbusters including the movie Paw (film), a film nominated for an Academy Award (Best foreign). There are several sources, both online and print. I will try to dig a little bit. Pugilist (talk) 21:42, 10 September 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Franck[edit]

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

The page appears to be largely promotional and taken from the andrewfranck.net website. The references consist largely of primary source material. I tried to establish his notability esp. on the music front without success. Karst (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 14 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 03:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Karst said, lots of the stuff is directly from his website. prod was removed eight years ago without explanation. I did several searches, but could not find independent, third party sources. —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 05:50, 22 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 00:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references are dead or do not reference the subject at all or only tangentially. None are reliable sources of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The evidence for this article's promotional nature is overwhelming. The original author's contributions page is highly suspicious, including the removal of a prod and an orphan tag. The account only has one mainspace edit outside of the article in question. -Lord Bromblemore 21:14, 9 September 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 Ice Cream (2014 film)#Sequel. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Cream 2[edit]

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

Filming has not begun yet according to sources, too soon for an article per WP:NFF, redirect is a viable option to Ice Cream (2014 film) BOVINEBOY2008 00:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per Bovineyboy. Article fails WP:GNG.--Janavar (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect to Ice_Cream_(2014_film)#Sequel, but leave the history. I can't see where principal filming has yet commenced, but it seems like it will be soon. In any case, I figure leaving the history intact will give us something to pull from if/when more coverage comes about. It seems likely that it'll release and get more coverage, but cinema is full of films that stalled at various pre-production stages so redirect for now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like filming has completed, but it's still slightly light. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete or Redirect, this movie is going to release next month on 19 September 2014, less than one month. This is a fast track movie, even it's sequel 'Ice Cream 3' starting on 15th September. I don't think it is too early as you guys say. --User:Varmapak 11.30, 23 August 2014

The good thing about redirects is that in most cases the history is left behind. This means that when the movie does get more coverage, we can un-redirect it and not lose a thing. The thing is, we can't guarantee that the film will release next month, as delays happen all the time. We also can't guarantee that it'll gain coverage per WP:CRYSTAL. Redirecting it is the best option here for the most part. For what it's worth, I do think that the movie will gain coverage enough to warrant a redirect so for now just be patient. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Ice_Cream_(2014_film). CutestPenguin (Talk) 15:20, 23 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 00:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ice Cream (2014 film) as 19 days away yet, Don;t see much point merging as in 19 days time this'll simply be redirected back .... Too much kerfuffle imho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ice Cream (2014 film). The film is not notable yet. However, the redirect can easily be undone should it ever become notable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:28, 30 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 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Coltrane Cultural Society[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 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 03:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as per nominator. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I have added several mainstream press references spanning 1991-2003, indicating attention beyond the immediate area. The article text indicates that the organisation came to at the least a pause the following year. Looking at this page, the current form of organisation is the John Coltrane House. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 22 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 00:53, 30 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lion’s Heart[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable. The group runs a volunteer program in various localities, with the extremely vague objective to “serve the community in meaningful and fun ways.” The only evidence for notability is a scattering of routine notices from local papers, which are totally unreliable as a source for notability of local events, because they are altogether indiscriminate.

The article further gives the impression the group sponsors the President's Volunteer Service Award, whereas it is merely one of the many groups that recommend people for this totally unimportant certificate--being a "certifying organization" is insignificant, when I see from the article on the award that "a Certifying Organization .. is any group that wishes to be able to award the President's Volunteer Service Award" and that "Any program would qualify for the award".

As for promotionalism: There is an excessive use of quotations, especially displayed quotations, for things that just need plain statements or add no information, where at most a reference link would serve--that's a characteristic of advertising prose, not encyclopedia articles. The use of routine local press mentions to show significance is another promotional technique--and what hey mention is very minor.

There are two reasons for using promotional content, and I think both are applicable: first, in order to show how good an organization is, instead of describing it. Second, because there is insufficient objective material. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- There have been a few edits made as to your points- removal of improper quotations, for example. Edit to the section about awards. I'll see if there are any better references or citations to be had other than from local sources. Editing shall commence! Absolutelyang (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user space It may have been premature to move this article out of the user's space. I left some information on the author's talk page about changing the tone of the article and finding more citations. This is a very recent article by a new editor, and rather than delete it outright it is probably a good idea to give the author time to continue to edit it. However, that might best happen out of the public area, and in fact the article may not in the end prove notability of the organization. LaMona (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 04:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 04:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ (changing to keep, see below) to User:Absolutelyang, the author and principal editor. The article needs a lot of work, but I think the subject shows promise. They can ask me for help with it, if they want - or I see that User:LaMona has already given them good suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your feedback. I have been trying to make some suggestions such as LaMona made. I'm still looking for better references, but I have removed some of the information that should have been cited, yet wasn't. I've gone over it and tried to remove unnecessary adjectives as well, while adding qualifiers to possibly fluid information. I'll spend a few hours today snooping around formatting pages, and see if I can't have a much better version by the end of the week. Absolutelyang (talk) 15:20, 26 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 00:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am unsure what changes have been made since the original nomination, but the references now show that the organization has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The coverage is not just regional but national.--Rpclod (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at it again, the article does contain two references that are fairly impressive: major stories from a Los Angeles television station and from the main newspaper in Atlanta. In addition there is coverage from more local sources like the OC Register. So I believe this does meet WP:ORG. I encourage the author to keep adding to it but I think it should be kept. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like the range of operation of this organization. 23 chapters in California (21 active and 2 apparently in archived status), chapter in Colorado (active with 6 classes of 2015 to 2019), chapter in Connecticut (active from class of 2014 to class of 2020), active chapter in Georgia (classes from 2016 to 2020), 3 chapters (all active) in New York, 1 chapter in Texas (active with class of 2019) and 1 in Wisconsin (apparently status is archived). --EarthFurst (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Solid sources from multiple states and extend coverage time-wise makes this a keep, I'd say. If this is kept, it is necessary that we work out some sort of disambiguation page or parenthetical descriptor for the title of this page and the title of Lion's_Heart, which only vary by a different form of apostrophe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upjav (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 September 2014‎
Weak Keep Newbie page creator has demonstrated willingness to accept and apply feedback given by nominator. I'd be more concerned about possible conflicts of interest, some of the material added by page creator not being supported by given sources. Sufficient number of the sources themselves, however, meet WP:IRS and demonstrate more than a local effort (California, Georgia, Connecticut). BusterD (talk) 23:31, 12 September 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 04:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obesophobia[edit]

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

Neither term (Obesophobia) nor (Pocrescophobia) is the subject of any secondary source. Article is a collection of material about similar subject matter that make it look like these terms are valid and notable medical ones - i.e. misrepresenting terms as notable ones. Not a DSM diagnosis either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 14 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 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a number of websites that use the term "obesophobia". However none of these are reliable sources. None of the references provided are actually about obesophobia. They are mainly about anorexia nervosa. The term seems to be little more than a neologism. There is only one paper in PubMed that mentions it. This is a paper that is translated from Spanish—and it uses the term only in inverted commas. ("Fat phobia" is mentioned in a number of PubMed papers.) Reference 7 (Silversides, Have North Americans taken "fat phobia" too far?) actually does not seem to be listed in PubMed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fat Phobia Scale. The term gets 32 GScholar hits, not a lot. "Fat phobia" seems the more common term with 1,260 GScholar hits. Obesophobia is mentioned in articles about anorexia nervosa. While the term seems real and is used in RS, there are not the multiple in-depth independent RS needed for WP:GNG notability. It seems a plausible search term, however, so a redirect to Fat Phobia Scale, where fat phobia is talked about, seems the best option. We don't have an article on Fat phobia (currently also a redirect to Fat Phobia Scale) but probably should--such an article would be the best target for a redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep The article has lots of problems, mostly in not using enough references and for having a confusing name, but I think it could be renamed to the popular term "Fat phobia" which does not have an article and which is well-covered in media. The content of this article seems to me to match the concept of fat phobia. One problem with this is that the article is actually about reflective fat phobia, or a person's own fear of becoming fat for negative results, and not discrimination against others. Fat phobia is not quite the right name for this; obesophobia probably is not the right name either. But if the content is backed by sources then it seems like a plausible topic for an article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article should be renamed Fat Phobia, and the contents of the article Fat Phobia Scale should become a section within it. This article has better references and takes a broader view than the scale. Once combined, there should be redirects from Obesophobia and Weight phobia to this article. If merge is decided I am willing to do a first pass. LaMona (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, per LaMona's proposal. This editorial suggestion seems to me to be an excellent one that effectively addresses some of the other disinterested considerations made above. Ultimately, these pages need to fit with Obesity#Size acceptance. That topic is clearly a relevant one, and of course it mustn't appear to be pov-forked. Buon lavoro... (I hope) 109.156.203.204 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 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 04:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added some reffs.The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 21:49, 24 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 00:52, 30 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 Witchblade clearly a better alternative to deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Brontë (comics)[edit]

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

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Witchblade: only fictional biography without assertion of real-world importance. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one make less sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 08:57, 27 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 00:51, 30 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. Aside from the article's creator, all are agreed. If it's recreated again without a DRV adducing new and improved sources, I'll salt it. Deor (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Forensics[edit]

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

I am very confident that this article was created by a skilled paid editor/wiki-manipulator (reminiscent of Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia). Despite their skill though, they have not been able to completely camouflage the fact that this company is non-notable. The references look good at first glance, but turn out to be quite poor. Antrocent (♫♬) 10:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two years ago this article was created and quickly speedy deleted for being spam and Lead Forensics (talk · contribs) was blocked for spamming, they appear to have brought on professionals since then. Antrocent (♫♬) 10:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After reading the rules on this I feel that the company is notable. They received coverage in Forbes, The Sunday Times and Marketing Week which is evidence of attention by international media and shows a reasonable depth of coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwrite465 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of the company in the Forbes article is a single sentance in passing:

EnVistar tested Relead and other sites seeking to generate more targeted leads including www.visualvisitor.com, www.leadformix.com, www.leadlander.com, www.leadforensics.com, www.loopfuse.com and www.activeconversion.com.

The only mention of the company in the Marketing Week article is a single sentence in passing:

At the moment we’re using a package from Lead Forensics that enables us to call people who haven’t converted but have shown a great deal of interest.

And I can't find the article in The Sunday Times. The citation given goes to a blog post that does not mention The Sunday Times. To count for notability coverage must be non trivial (WP:GNG). Antrocent (♫♬) 13:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More content found to be considered, along with some of the existing content. The B2B Marketing Tech review is one reference that completely covers Lead Forensics and seems to be a notable marketing magazine in the UK. I've also noticed the following link http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2013/06/18/adapting-to-a-responsive-design-case-study/, which currently doesn't feature on the article even though it is referred to.

Lead Forensics has also ranked 3 years running as the top 100 companies in the UK to work for by the Sunday Times. Iwrite465 (talk) 10:45, 21 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, Tawker (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: After looking over the page again and also Googling the company I've found more interesting coverage. This includes an online review from Doug Richards of UK's Dragons' Den here. There is also an article on School for Startups here and what seems like an independent review from the IT company Amicitia here. Iwrite465 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You omit that the "online review" is based on the company's youtube channel, so it's not independent. What makes schoolforstartups.co.uk or Amicitia reliable sources? The first one looks like a blog, and the second is a company website rather than an edited publication. 109.79.81.156 (talk) 09:16, 30 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 00:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as spam. In what way is this minor SEO and lead tracking company an encyclopedic topic? There is no technical significance here. There is enough footprint to include them in a business directory, but we aren't one of those, were an encyclopedia.

Also theyre described as "a cloud computing company" in the first lead sentence. They aren't. Amazon, Google and others provide cloud services, this lot don't. Viam Ferream (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are also email spammers. One "Danielle.Jones@lead-forensics.com" (if they exist) is sending out "Hi Mr <name>, I hope you are well and business is booming at <business name from your domain name WHOIS>" spams. Anyone else at this AfD had one yet? Or is it just the usual spammer scatter-gun? Viam Ferream (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't seen this company on any of the references referred to as an SEO organisation. If the initial sentence needs changing I don't see that as a reason for deletion. What about all the references and awards? I'm quite concerned by the hostility shown, the IP comment and Viam comment, as they seem to come from new users. You can see their contributions here and here. Both of which seem to have made a number of random edits with their comments on this article sandwiched in the middle. Personally I find it strange that two new editors would take an interest in this discussion on the same day they registered? Iwrite465 (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"New editors" ? As against an editor whose only edit is to create a new article on their first edit, then to argue against its deletion? Viam Ferream (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created the article and then I've had to come here and discuss it, I think any editor would understand me defending an article I've created. My concern is that two editors within hours of their first edit, begin posting on a deletion discussion and are quoting fairly advanced rules and regulations. To me it looks like they've both done this before and I find that a concern. Iwrite465 (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is an advert. Spumuq (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No evidence of notability in the first several pages of Google search results. Just their own site, twitter, LinkedIn, and a host of minor blogs devoted to internet marketing. Not to mention is reads like advertising. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no evidence of notability in reliable, independent sources. Reyk _YO! 04:14, 12 September 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 04:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Seada[edit]

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

No notability, non famous person with no references, all his achievements are support a one uprising workers in a petroleum company in Egypt 2011 not more, his organization also is unknown, He didn't get any prizes or has a media coverage, if you check references you find it from his articles, from his newspaper or Dead url Ibrahim.ID »» 04:28, 15 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 04:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 23 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 00:50, 30 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 Integrated care. Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated health services[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. Both DDG and Google turn up exactly one hit for both "United States Integrative Healthcare Association" and "Ascension Integrated Health Services". Guess which website that is. Also, the claim that USIHA was founded by "dr. Eric Snowden" raises an alarm bell. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Integrated care as a plausible search term. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:29, 23 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 00:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a promotional article for a multispecialty healthcare group in Texas (IHS external link). The article was created by the user account "Integrated Health Services." One of the chiropractors is indeed named Eric Snowden (Link). Gccwang (talk) 19:46, 5 September 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Jewson[edit]

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

Much like Paul Cartledge (Music) - clearly some interesting work, but the citations don't really validate much about it. His music clearly exists and is distributed but doesn't seem to have been given critical coverage. Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any reliable sources. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:54, 25 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 00:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, for insufficient coverage. Walentinee (talk) 10:42, 3 September 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Moment (Manafest)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not currently meet WP:NALBUMS despite having an entry, but not a review, in AllMusic. It's self-published and may not get any coverage from the niche press. Nothing in Jesus Freak Hideout, which would be the most likely to review it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:37, 23 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 00:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that there is no evidence of notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Wouldn't object to a redirect. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:23, 6 September 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, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshana Rudiakov[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY, from this on the Spanish-language article Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a shame to lose information about a female classical musician who had what appears to be a laudable career, but I cannot find sources related to her in any of the usual places. I even looked in the Latvian and German WPs, and there was nothing there (she appears to have played often in Germany). She has a respectable number of records and appearances, but I only found one very short NY Times review. This may need to be a delete. Note that her brother also was a musician, and there is no WP page for him. LaMona (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 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 15:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources found: [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. Collectively, I'm inclined to say they satisfy WP:BASIC, particularly for someone whose career predated the Internet. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:48, 22 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 00:49, 30 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)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Star Casino Resort[edit]

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

Non-notable business. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No sources are cited, thus also failing WP:V. A Google turned up a large number of promotional hits plus a few run of the mill blurbs on business sites and PR announcements, but nothing that rings the notability bell. Article had been deleted via PROD but was recently restored with no evidence of improvement. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom based on substantial improvements to the article that clearly satisfy both WP:N and WP:V. Suggest speedy close per WP:SK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ WP:N notable. ~~Fails WP:V.~~ Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 15 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 15:49, 22 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 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources available to satisfy GNG, I've added some to the article. Toohool (talk) 07:52, 31 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young Sinatra: Undeniable[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Mixtapes are generally not notable except for rare exceptions. This mixtape did not receive the amount of coverage in reliable sources to warrant a separate article. STATic message me! 12:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for insufficient coverage Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 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 15:52, 22 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 00:48, 30 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 Radiofax#Transmission details. Jenks24 (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Index of cooperation[edit]

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

I could not establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nomination. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fax, or whichever daughter article is appropriate, merging anything that isn't already present. This is a plausible redirect: [17]. We do not delete plausible redirects. WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. James500 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that dictionary definitions (if for the sake of argument this is one) are supposed to be copied to Wiktionary using the import process, and the correct !vote for this is "transwiki", not "delete". I should also point out that NOTDICTIONARY is not a free pass for removing all definitions. James500 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that we have many articles that are glossaries (eg Glossary of chess). We could have a Glossary of Telecommunication Terms, or something similar, and include this. James500 (talk) 00:01, 24 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Radiofax#Transmission details where the term is defined and explained. This term is only relevant for old drum-style fax machines. I was unable to find more than simple definitions in Google. No doubt there are historical paper sources that discuss this term in more detail, but until those are found. this is a plausible search term and is verifiable, so a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radiofax#Transmission details per Mark viking. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:01, 6 September 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 Margaret (magazine). Redirect to magazine in which it was published. If somebody would like to merge some content there, this is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime Shooting Star[edit]

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

Search for reliable third-party sources only turns illegal scanlation websites. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BK. Even Anime News Network's encyclopedia doesn't contain an entry on this. Article is almost entirely WP:PLOT. —Farix (t | c) 11:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To my surprise, ja:ひるなかの流星 actually has a couple sources. I don't know if they're in any way useful, but due diligence. --erachima talk 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two references from the same site. However from that site it appears the series is involved with a clothing label (Comic Natalie link: [18]).SephyTheThird (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work and can't view Anime News Network right now, but I remember them having an article saying the series got a clothing line. I assume that is referring to the same thing as that Japanese site. Calathan (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2014-05-25/daytime-shooting-star-shojo-manga-gets-clothing-line/.74746 SephyTheThird (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - About the manga not being in Anime News Network's encyclopedia, that doesn't really reflect whether the series is notable, but instead just reflects that it hasn't been released in the United States. There are far more manga submitted in Anime News Network's submission queue than the staff has time to add, so series that have been released in the US or that are by mangaka who are well known in the US get priority to be added. A manga can be pretty well known in Japan and still not be in the Encyclopedia if it hasn't been released in the US. Calathan (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with no good references to be found there is not anything that can be worked on for improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 20 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 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added the two Kai-You articles, if it's any help. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 18:27, 23 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 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD should have been closed or relisted several days ago. No arguments have been presented to explain why this isn't a plausible redirect to the magazine in which it was published. James500 (talk) 13:19, 10 September 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 Screen of death#Other_screens_of_death. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green Screen of Death[edit]

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

This article discusses two different topics: a TiVo maintenance screen and a Xbox system failure screen. Those two devices have no relation to each other. This article is like a WP:COATRACK, except worse, because there is no coherent topic to begin with.

Also, neither topic is sourced at all. I doubt either would pass WP:GNG: there is simply nothing to write about other than "if this device fails to function properly, an error screen appears, contact customer support to fix that" — in-depth coverage in independent sources of either simply cannot exist. — Keφr 08:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TiVo failure mode is discussed on 4 separate pages of How to Do Everything with Your TiVo (McGraw-Hill Publishers) and on page 24 of "TiVo Hacks: 100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools" (O'Reilly Media). Both of these sources actually call it the "Green Screen of Death". Accordingly Green Screen of Death is at least plausible redirect to TiVo and should not be deleted. So I suggest a redirect with or without merge. James500 (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, Screen of death might be a better target for merger (of whatever content the sources support) and redirection. James500 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced content to merge right now, and if the target article does not mention the term, redirecting makes no sense. And both sources seem to be barely mentioning that the thing exists anyway. — Keφr 19:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument makes no sense. Either TiVo or Screen of death ought to discuss this topic and, since adequate sources are available, you are in a position to add a discussion of this topic to that article and you ought to do so. By your logic, every time an article is vandalized by being blanked, all redirects to that article must be deleted. And all I have to do to defeat your argument is to add a discussion of the "green screen of death" to that article. James500 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC) To put it another way, an expression can be legitimately redirected to a target page on the assumption that the target page will eventually mention that expression. James500 (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a passage about the green screen of death to Screen of death with this edit, so you now have no possible grounds for claiming that Green Screen of Death is not a plausible redirect. James500 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"you ought to do so" — no, the onus is on the "keeper" to show that the material is useful and relevant. I think it is not. Pretty much the only thing that can be extracted from these sources is "It exists". So? And [[Screen of death]] is just as bad of a quasi-coatrack article as this one is. I think it ought to be nominated too. — Keφr 17:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS is only an essay. Can you offer any positive reason to not include it that doesn't sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the article is already a dictionary entry or usage guide or quasi disambiguation page, in the sense of having multiple meanings on the same page, how will one more meaning make matters worse? And can you give any positive reason for not including the passage that I wrote in TiVo (or one of its daughter articles) where its inclusion can't possibly be any form of synthesis. James500 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Your argument that Screen of death is a coatrack is not going to work, because that article is meant to be a disambiguation page. (This was decided at the last AfD in 2009). And disambiguation pages don't have to have a coherent topic. (Though it might require reworking). James500 (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS is only an essay, but so is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (And the very same one, to boot!) My reason for exclusion is this: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I have nothing against a sentence in [[TiVo]], if it is nontrivial (no "when there is an error, a message appears"), sourced and put in proper context. Screen of death is not a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages look like this: a mere list of links, sometimes split into sections. And no references. — Keφr 08:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the Xbox, see this article in The Register. James500 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, congratulations. Now you have something to add to the article about Xbox One. Which did not exist back in 2006 when this article had identical content. — Keφr 08:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Rant: Why does it always take a deletionist to nominate an article for someone to start looking for sources at all? Contrary to a popular mantra, not only is AFD cleanup, it is the best cleanup Wikipedia has.[reply]
  - Reply to rant: It might have something to do with the amount of time that has to be spent discussing nominations, and especially borderline nominations, instead of editing articles directly.
Green screen of death has been a redirect to the article that is now Screen of death since 2009. James500 (talk) 10:47, 18 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 15:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Screen of death. That is where the other redirect points. James500 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Screen of Death. It seems ridiculous to have one of these for every colour of the rainbow. Reyk _YO! 12:34, 29 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 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to screen of death If something goes out, it has a screen with a color for it; these aren't any different. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to screen of death#Other screens of death. A legitimate search term, but there is no need for a separate article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:06, 30 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 04:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Jerusalem tractor attack[edit]

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

I am not sure that this article meets the notability guidelines. It appears to be a typical murder - as a rule, murders are not notable. It has similarities to the Jerusalem bulldozer attack 2008 in which thirty people died - but here, only one person died, and the incident never got wide press. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: in the 2008 attack, 3 dead, 30 injured. Note that in some other vehicle attacks with political motives no-one died. Terrorist/political motivation appears to transmit notability.ShulMaven (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tough one. It did receive significant coverage, and has to be viewed as part of the larger Hamas-Israel conflict, having been one of the attacks perpetuated on the Israeli side, as opposed to the Israeli incursion into Gaza. That's how most of the media portrayed it, and given the reduced number of casualties on the Israeli population, this might be significant enough to merit an article. I abstain from voting though, because I'm not knowledgeable enough on the notability of events. CesareAngelotti (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hardly a "typical" murder, this is terrorism, a piece of construction equipment stolen and deliberately rammed into a public bus in an attempt to commit murder for political motives. It is similar to Omeed Aziz Popal SUV rampage, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, Jerusalem BMW attack, May 2014 Ürümqi attack. My expectation is that this attack will receive future coverage as one of this international series of semi-spontaneous attacks by ramming a vehicle into pedestrians or civilian vehicles by politically-motivated terrorists. ShulMaven (talk) 21:29, 28 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 00:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ShulMaven, I do question whether we need articles on every single attack there but it like others it recieved quite alot of coverage . –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS as reliable sources appear to have ceased talking about it a day or so after it happened. The fact that some seem to find it a cool and novel method of killing is not a reason to ignore our policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Almost all the sources are within a day or two of the attack. Some are from 2008, but the relevance of those to the event is doubtful. Kingsindian (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every single terrorist attack deserves an article. Only if it was notable for number of causalities, political impact, degree of news coverage, etc - and I don't think this event is notable in any of those ways. SJK (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:DIVERSE and general notability guidelines merging to the main article is not possible as it already too large per WP:SIZE--Shrike (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added material on ongoing coverage and political impact. Contrary to assertions above, a rudimentary search turned up ongoing coverage, including an article published 12 minutes ago - some of which I added to the article, and also substantive coverage of the the political and psychological impact of this attack.ShulMaven (talk) 23:55, 6 September 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. Per WP:BIODEL Wifione ^Message 08:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Wornick[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP, passed from PROD to here, I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are short news articles about her, but most seem to be prompted by a change of station. There is nothing that I can find that makes her notable among TV personalities. The page author Mooneyhill165 has created a number of pages for TV stations and a few for TV personalities. I assume that there is no exception for TV stations from WP:CORP, and that TV personalities must be notable as per WP:BLP. This author may need to review those guidelines to avoid putting in effort here that will just get deleted. LaMona (talk) 15:19, 23 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 00:39, 30 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 List of schools in Hampstead#Independent schools. Wifione ^Message 08:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy School[edit]

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

A school for children aged 6-13, it would simply be a primary school if the ages were 6-11. It takes kids slightly older but isn't a high school either. There are 2 refs, the first is a link to an ofstead report which every school in the UK gets, the second is an entry in a book called the good schools guide which doesn't confer any notability and indeed contains thousands of schools. No assertion of notability in the article just some blurb probably lifted from the school website. Szzuk (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to ~~Hampstead~~ List of schools in Hampstead#Independent schools per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:46, 25 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 00:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Hampstead#Independent schools. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:35, 30 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. Wifione ^Message 08:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Cup[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish its WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 23 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 00:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It clearly has a long history but it is basically a local inter-club competition not open to the best golfers. Nigej (talk) 14:35, 31 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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Epsilon Iota[edit]

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

This article is sourced entirely to primary sources that are not credibly independent of the subject. It is, moreover, WP:OWNed by DEINationalOffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an evident SPA who clearly has a conflict of interests editing in this area. The subject does not appear to be a member of the Association of College Honor Societies, the main governing body for such societies, and there has been some unconfirmed buzz on the internet about it being a scam. Under the circumstances, absent independent secondary sources (and with the Delta Epsilon Iota National Office actively editing its own article to make it appear in a favorable light), it seems best to delete it. If sufficient secondary sourcing can be found, then the article could possibly be rewritten as a stub based on those sources. But given the circumstances, I should think that the demands for neutral secondary sourcing should be quite high here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having likewise looked, I can find little evidence of the significant coverage in third-party published sources necessary to establish that this organisation meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. A promotional puff-piece, of no encyclopaedic merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there seems to be evidence from the article's history that it may previously have been deleted. The first edit, dated 11 December 2008, includes a 'primary sources' template dated January 2007. [19] The contributor responsible for the (re)creation has made no edits on any other article. [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was speedy deleted in 2006. [21] Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any evidence of notability either. And some of what's there now is not supported by the given sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any evidence of notability either.Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 31 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. Wifione ^Message 08:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connacht Schools Rugby Senior Cup[edit]

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

It has some decent coverage, but it is a schools sports competition and seems non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - Schools Rugby is a very important part of Irish rugby - many of the top players are first recognized at this level. The provincial finals draw large crowds every March. One cannot understand Irish rugby without knowing about this layer. Pmunited (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While Connacht Schools Rugby Senior Cup may not be the most reported and most well known of the provincial competitions, there is an article is each one of Ireland's four provinces it should be kept though it could do with improvement. Deleting this one article means leaving a quarter of the story untold. Also agree with Pmunited. ww2censor (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only just.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:06, 29 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 00:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Connacht Schools is the weakest of the provincial competitions, but if this province is non-notable, logically, the same applies to the other three provinces. And if we did that, believe me, Wikipedia would be making headlines in Ireland. While I know that WP:OSE is normally non-kosher reasoning here, if you delete one province's article, as @Ww2censor says, you leave a quarter of the story untold. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:53, 1 September 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. Wifione ^Message 08:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alphan Eseli[edit]

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

Unreferenced bio of a not notable person. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Copyedited and added reliable references showing notability. --CeeGee 12:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - page has been moved to Alphan Eşeli. Ansh666 19:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis I consider a film director to be the primary creative force behind a film, and his films have been multiple award-winning, therefore he meets WP:CREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not a well known filmmaker. It seems a newcomer with first film shot in Turkey. Should only be on Turkish Wikipedia not English.

That's not how English Wikipedia works, it's a global project, not simply for notable subjects in UK, USA or Australia etc. Sionk (talk) 23:59, 26 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 00:36, 30 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. Michig (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of AFC Wimbledon[edit]

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

This article is just an amalgamation of AFC Wimbledon's main page and the other half is just copied pasted and slightly more biased version of the Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes which technically isn't AFC's history, it's the original Wimbledon's. I find it hard to believe a 12 year old club needs a separate history page yet Abcmaxx (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - break-out article on the club's history not yet needed, the main article covers it in more than adequate detail -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not to say that this could not be a notable subject in its own right, but this appears to be a completely unnecessary fork at this moment. Fenix down (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/ Delete - Merge the content which isn't already included on AFC Wimbledon. AFC Wimbledon have only been around five minutes, there isn't that much history anyway. Most of the content in this article is already included on Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes and AFC Wimbledon. We can recreate this article in 50 years time when the club actually has some notable history. IJA (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, unnecessary content fork. Giant Snowman 11:40, 1 September 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.