< 13 December	15 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Chauvet[edit]

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

self promotion of unknown politician Bilaab (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a conflict of interest isn't a reason for deletion. That said, I can't see how the editor in question has a conflict of interest anyway - he or she would not seem to be the person in question. I can see how the subject might be a borderline case of WP:NPOL but which of the sources do you suggest are not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG? St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~There not one single serious source in the article that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". The only sources which are directly about Mr Chauvet come from very small regional gazettes.~~ Acrithène (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thank you St★lwart¹¹¹ - agree. Shouldn't we create a list of Activists-related deletion discussions for cases like this?--Valedictorii (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a tad narrow - but we could always ask one of the experts (like • Gene93k) for some guidance. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Basic WP:GNG met I think. Also seems to meet notability in WP:ACADEMIC for passing "Average Professor test" and WP:NPOL : "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level. (...) Politicians who (a) represent a historic first (...) or (b) have received national or international press coverage, e.g. for acting as a spokesperson on a major political issue. LaFayettePolitico (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wonder how the authors can argue that Mr Chauvet passes the "Average Professor test". From my understanding, he was some kind of a TA for a MOOC of HEC Paris (I am myself teaching there), and has no published any research. An average professor does not even have a PhD ? Mr Chauvet is not (yet) a notable political leader as the article suggests.

With regards to the fact that "Vincent Chauvet headed the student protest movement against a new policy enforced by Interior Minister Claude Guéant to massively reject work visa applications for foreign students forcing them to leave France after graduation", : It seems that Mister Chauvet was indeed a leader of a group named "Collectif 31 mai" which takes part to the protest. This does not mean that Mister Chauvet headed the movement. In the French wikipédia, a user named "Lordvince" (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Lordvince) who claims to be a graduate from HEC, Science Po and Sorbonne (so probably Vincent Chauvet himself according to his biography) is a major contributor to articles that are related to the "circulaire" of Mister Guéant, and defended the article on his own "Collectif 31 mai" against deletion (the article was however deleted : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Collectif_31_mai/Suppression).

Lordvince is also one of the main editors of the article "CV anonyme" on the French wikipédia, the subject on which he "sued the Prime Minister" and on which his name is quoted (by a one time IP contributor).

User Lordvince is also one of the main contributors to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regards_sur_la_politique, an article in which the name "Vincent Chauvet" is the second quoted.

etcetera...

While it is less obvious to show that Mr Chauvet is promoting himself on the English Wikipedia (or that political allies do it), I think what's happening on the French Wikipédia (in which there is no "Vincent Chauvet" article by the way as it would be obviously quicly deleted) raises doubts on the content of this article.

There is for the moment no serious source in the article in which Mister Chauvet is the main topic.

I react here because I was suprised to see Mr Chauvet among the notable alumni of HEC Paris, which is obviously ridiculous !

~~I am an occasional contributor on the French Wiki, maybe my vote does not count.~~ --Acrithène (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For all your analysis of WP:PROF and WP:NPOL, you've missed WP:GNG and haven't explained why the subject wouldn't meet our basic inclusion criteria. Inclusion in fr.wp or not is irrelevant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:– I would have to agree with Stalwart on this. Wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability. Subject of the article clearly meet WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keyvan Dehnad[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. High rank or Hall of fame do not confer notability and references do not support WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the significant coverage required to show he meets WP:GNG and there's also nothing in the article to show he meets any of the notability criteria for martial artists (see WP:MANOTE). It's a long standing view that martial arts notability is not shown by either rank or halls of fame. Papaursa (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, per Papaursa. Delete him.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ishq Sarfira[edit]

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

Promotional article of no encyclopedic importance. Subject of the artcle fails WP:NFILM. In addition, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedia is not a directory for upcoming events. Wikicology (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SIR, please leave this page for few months, kindly do not delete it.As i have the press coverage and media works done, will keep updating and making a highly a notable evidences.thankyou Doburhoney (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I'm tempted to G11 it. I don't any sign of significance in any reliable sources, and thus it fails WP:NFF as well. Doburhoney, get your promotions done on your website NOT on Wikipedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:BOLDly redirected to Tony Award. (non-admin closure) ansh666 19:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

69th Tony Awards[edit]

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

This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. This should be recreated when at least some of the basic info is known, like the date and host. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tony Award created When in doubt, redirect. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 01:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 19:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese water[edit]

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

Originally PROD'd as essay/original research with one supporting PROD and a second more stinging PROD. PROD was removed by author with no improvements. I agree with the sentiments. Non-coherent un-encyclopedic article. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I get the impression that this is a machine-translated version of an article at the Japanese Wikipedia. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rambling essay filled with original research, and not really appropriate as an encyclopedia article. I'm sensing a pattern here with new articles created by the same enthusiastic editor, a large number of which have either already been deleted or are up for deletion, and I see that the editor has been briefly blocked once for repeatedly creating new articles without paying more attention to the basic Wikipedia guidelines. --DAJF (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I noted this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University clubs in Japan. Mudslides in Japan is hanging on for now, but that's mostly because no one has bothered to put it up for deletion as suggested at User talk:Dekimasu#Mudslide in Japan. Dekimasuよ! 03:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mish-mash of confused English practice. Since almost all the references are in Japanese, I followed one -- on the utterly unbelievable claim that Japan "imports" (?!) 60% of its water (whatever that could possibly mean). It turns out that the claim on the Japanese environment ministry's website is that Japan is only self-sufficient for 40% of its food in calorie terms, and thus the 60% of "virtual water" used to grow this food is "imported". So this bit is wrong, basically. I expect the rest is similar. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This is a very clear essay and should not be an encyclopedia article. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Hasirpad's suspicion and the two untranslated Related Pages wikilinks, I checked the respective What Links Here on jawp ja:特別:リンク元/自然農法 (Natural farming) and ja:特別:リンク元/有機農業 (Organic farming), giving close attention to 水 (water). Only ja:冬期湛水 (Winter waterlogging) and ja:炭酸水素ナトリウム (Sodium bicarbonate, Japanese calls hydrogen "water element") are found. It might be that jawp used to have such a counterpart but have been deleted.

Anyway delete Sourced parts might possibly be salvaged to their separate topics, but together at this state is a WP:TNT at best, and easily gone with WP:NOTESSAY per above. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my seconding of the proposed deletion is all I have to add. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 21:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese walnuts[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia article; it is an analysis of the commercial possibilities of growing walnuts in Nepal. I had prodded it saying "This is not an encyclopedia article; it is an essay or report about the commercial possibilities of walnut growing in Nepal. It is part of a recent cluster of such essays, described here. We already have an article on this walnut species at Juglans regia." Prod was removed by author with the comment, "This article was proposed for deletion because of it's report-like nature. I have removed these sections to make it more encyclopedic in nature. This post is specific to Nepal which is important to genetically distinguish." Also, an IP post on the talk page said "There is indeed already a page on Juglans regia but it is very generalized and in microbiological terms, a Nepalese walnut can be very different than a general walnut. Distinguishing between them is therefore essential." However, it should be noted that the article does NOT make any genetic or other distinction between Nepalese and other walnuts, and the "report-like" material was NOT removed from the article - just a few section headings. IMO this is still an essay or commercial analysis, not suitable as a Wikipedia article. MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It doesn't appear that there's a distinct "Nepalese" walnut. All we've got basically is that walnuts can be grown profitably in Nepal (nothing especially notable about that) and there's a odd law against cutting down walnut trees and selling the wood. All else is pretty generic walnut info. Keep. Looks much better now. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as edited). I gutted the article, and now I think it's worth keeping. Not the best article ever, but no need to trash it entirely. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has been moved to Walnut production in Nepal. --MelanieN (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Heymann standard met by Calliopejen1's work. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute It's nice that a lot of the cruft has been removed from the article. But does that mean that what remains is notable enough for an article? What we learn from the article is that Nepal currently has little or no commercial walnut production. The original article speculated about whether Nepal might develop walnuts as a commercial crop. With that speculation removed, we are left with an article about nothing - since Nepal does not currently produce a commercial walnut crop. Wikipedia has no other "Walnut production in…" articles, not even for the major sources. (The world's top sources of walnuts are the US, China, and Iran, per Walnut#Production.) There is no good reason for us to have an article about walnut production in a country that is not a significant producer of walnuts! --MelanieN (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calliopejen1, Qwertyus, Clarityfiend: Any reaction or response to this comment? --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: this is a rather obscure topic, and I wouldn't mind a merge into Walnut or Juglans regia or Fruit production in Nepal or Walnut production by country or whatever. But I don't see a reason to delete. The current article has a clearly defined topic and establishes sufficient facts about this topic by references to reliable sources. There being no articles about walnut production worldwide is a shame, but it's no reason to delete this article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is enough there for an article, but the new title is misleading. Walnut use in Nepal better describes the contents. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Day-Old Dishwater Weak Keep: Yeah, I agree with Melanie: this is absurd. This is like talking about Christmas Tree production in Plymouth County, just because you could dredge up some references to the half-dozen blokes running Christmas tree farms in SE Massachusetts. It's about as trivial and silly as you can get, and it bugs me that there are tens of thousands of articles on *real* subjects that could've really used the TLC this joke's gotten. I just don't see any legit policy grounds to delete. It's well sourced. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with MelanieN - I don't see any evidence that this is a notable topic. Just because there are references that support the fact that walnuts exist and can be grown commercially (most of them) and even one or two that speculate that they MIGHT be growable in Nepal, there's still no evidence that walnut production in a country that does not, in fact, commercially produce walnuts comes close to being notable.PianoDan (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rowanne Pasco[edit]

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

Deletion recommended: does not appear to have reached threshold for notability. Quis separabit? 20:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sweep of British newspapers came up dry although I did not check further, and I am willing to change my view based on new information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beldaje Mohamed Beldaje Ismail[edit]

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

The individual doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. There are only two Google hits for "Beldaje Mohamed Beldaje Ismail", the other of which is a blog [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:V. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author has moved the article to Beeldaaje Maxamed Beeldaaje Ismaaciil. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most probably a hoax. Creator blocked here; cross-wiki vandalism. Jared Preston (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tik Tik Boom[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline as it lacks "significant coverage", which is defined as "more than a passing mention". The vast majority of the sources used here are reviews of the song's parent album which only mention the song in passing. Additionally, WP:NSONG states, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability."

The exception is Idolator, a gossip blog, used to support the claim that the song is based on a demo by another musical artist. (The source itself explicitly says, "It's just speculation, though! Nothing confirmed".) –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that WP:NSONG states, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability", so why Rihanna articles "Fool in Love" and "Do Ya Thang" are here on Wikipedia and received good article nominations? Because if you look at them (which are articles about songs that were ONLY ON THE ALBUM'S DELUXE EDITION), you will see that they have only sources about the PARENT ALBUM (two reviews are from PopDust - not reliable - and The Fourth States), so why those articles are good enough since that they don't have at least one single source about the song itself and "Tik Tik Boom" can't receive the same treatment? It's not right! FanofPopMusic (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the list keeps growing... "Farewell" has even less sources than "Tik Tik Boom" and it is considered a "good article", some users even redirected some songs for Christina Aguilera's "Bionic" (which were with a lot of reliable sources), because of the same claim, but then I see many articles with sources only from the album reviews and they are considered GOOD ENOUGH to receive a GA nomination. IT'S NOT FAIR AT ALL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanofPopMusic (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 December 2014

Please calm down and review WP:ATA (particularly WAX). This isn't a discussion about any other article but this one. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a clear example that other articles here on Wikipedia don't have sources that users claimed "Tik Tik Boom" needs to have (this article is only with references about the album, but other articles here are intact, received GA and lack the same thing as "Tik Tik Boom") and now this article is considered to be deleted for reasons that are not applied to every non-single article? Oh please, let's be reasonable. It's the same thing, because we are talking about songs that are not singles and have the same sources (album reviews). I just wanna justice and that the same rules to apply to every single article here, if "Tik Tik Boom" lacks sources about the song itself, so does many "good articles" here, and it's clearly not fair ! FanofPopMusic (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a plausible search term to the parent album article. Minor chart placement and no independent third party notability. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy delete, a2 of lt:wiki Jac16888 ^Talk 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lietuvos finansų maklerių asociacija[edit]

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

Article not in English; possibly copy and paste to appropriate language wiki? smileguy91^talk 19:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it is an exact copy of the corresponding article at the Lithuanian Wikipedia. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Ali Aden[edit]

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

The individual doesn't to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. He's apparently a low-level reporter at a small news organization in Somalia. There are also only 5,260 Google hits for "Yusuf Ali Aden", most of which are either wiki mirrors or pertain to other people [4]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you most stop editing my page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YusufVIP (talk • contribs) 21:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author has moved the article to Yusuf Ali Adan. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a self-promotional page on a person who comes nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article has been created several times by a disruptive editor using several accounts. It is time to put a stop to it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A journalist who was arrested by local authorities. BIO1E at best. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. No evidence of meeting WP:JOURNALIST. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the vi and Vim Editors[edit]

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

Non-notable computer book. Links offered aren't deep coverage and simply explain the OReilly practice of using drawings of animals on their covers. Authors aren't notable enough to meet "anything written" criteria of WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NBOOK states that it doesn't cover manuals. This one is in its 7th edition, which makes i a classic in the world of instructional manuals. No shortage of reviews and references out there. Vrac (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:NBOOK also says that, until some other guideline is made, WP:NBOOK can be applied. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know what you think of the notability of the other O'Reilly technical manuals: Category: O'Reilly Media books. Is there something in particular that makes this one less notable or do you feel that they are all suspect? Vrac (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Review in Dr. Dobb's Journal. Holdings in 181 libraries. Mentioned for additional reading in classes at UConn, Eastern Michigan, UCSB, and Harvard. This isn't ever going to be a featured article, but I think the book has picked up enough notoriety over seven editions to clear the hurdle of notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that earlier editions of the book were titled Learning the vi editor. Peter H. Salus reviewed the book for ;login: in 1989. I'm trying to track down the text of that review. Here's the BibTeX cite:

@Article{Salus:1989:BRL,
  author =       "Peter H. Salus",
  title =        "Book Review: {Learning the vi Editor}",
  journal =      j-LOGIN,
  volume =       "14",
  number =       "3",
  pages =        "14--??",
  month =        may # "\slash " # jun,
  year =         "1989",
  CODEN =        "LOGNEM",
  ISSN =         "1044-6397",
  bibdate =      "Tue Feb 20 15:42:13 MST 1996",
  bibsource =    "ftp://ftp.uu.net/library/bibliography;
                 http://www.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/usenix1980.bib",
  acknowledgement = ack-nhfb,
  affiliation =  "Open Software Foundation",
}

Earlier editions of the book were recommended at UMBC, UMICH, and Northwestern.
Two more short reviews (not sure how much these should count, but for sake of completenes): Danny Yee reviewed the book in 1994, and All Things Linux reviewed the book in 1999. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vrac and Lesser Cartographies. If we were to apply NBOOK by analogy, the relevant section would probably be TBK, not the more restrictive main criteria which are primarily intended for contemporary fiction. TBK simply directs us to use "common sense" which allows us to look at, in addition to the main criteria, factors such as the number of editions, which is normally an indicator of popularity. James500 (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Guernsey F.C. season[edit]

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

There is a long-standing consensus that in a similar vein to players (WP:NFOOTY), season articles are only appropriate for clubs that play in fully-professional leagues. Guernsey F.C. play four levels below the lowest such league in England. Previous examples of AfDs here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. All these AfDs were for season articles for clubs playing at a higher level in the pyramid than Guernsey.

The article was prodded, but prod removed with rationale that "This club is a notable club as seen by the sources provided for the references as they are the only Major club in the Channel Islands and they are a non-english team playing in the English league system they are also notable due to their status." The fact that the club is notable is not in dispute – the issue is that season articles are not deemed so at this level. Note also that one of the AfDs listed above was for Colwyn Bay F.C., who are another non-English club playing in the English pyramid, so being a non-English club is not deemed especially notable. Number 5 7 19:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator, that editor explained very well, and I agree with vote above ("no evidence of notability"). Also this article is list of stats only and lacks informative text and there is no evidence in article that support something special occurced that season, making it notable. Even if article gets some text added it is not notable, since there is no evidence of notability. QED237 (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk)21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This season is notabe it has recieved wider coverage in reliable third party sources for example the BBC. The reports for the matches are not simply taken from the club itself. The club is also the first and only team from the Channel Islands to complete in the English League system, they are also the first and only club from the Channel Islands to compete in Football Association organised competition such as the FA Trophy and the FA Cup. The club matches are used as a tourist attraction by the tourism authorities of Guernsey and can be seen here and matches are covered by the BBC as can be seen here, also other special in season requirements which only affect Guernsey F.C are covered by the BBC as can be seen here. There is also coverage of notable season events covered by independent and reliable sources as can be seen here and here. Sport and politics (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current consensus is that clubs in non-FPL|fully professional leagues are not notable enough to justify their own season article unless significant sourced prose can be found to satisfy GNG. There is no sourced prose whatsoever in this article. The sources notes above by Sport and politics do not assist in satisfying GNG for the following reasons:

[5] - this is an article on the club not the 2014-15 season.
[6] - this is WP:ROUTINE match reporting, the sort very brief report which exists for almost every club in the UK playing above county level. Current consensus is that this is insufficient for GNG, articles need to be provided that discuss the season in a wider context than individual matches.
[7] - whilst this relates to the 14-15 season, it does not justify a standalone article, a sentence in the club article would suffice to convey all relevant information.
[8] - This does not relate to the 2014-15 season, and is in itself pure speculation. Guernsey's fixture congestion in the 2013-14 season can be covered with a couple of sentences in the club article.
[9] - again deals with fixture pile up in the 2013-14 season, so not relevant to the 14-15 season. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources in the article, and the ones thrown up here all are casual mentions and/or run afoul of WP:ROUTINE. Sorry, no seegar. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) @ 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Hurle[edit]

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

no claim to notability per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), culling from obit Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Can I suggest that you withdraw the AfD, please, as per Wikipedia:Notability (New Zealand people)? Schwede 66 07:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to provide a more convincing reason for keeping the article than a general reference to a non-binding proposed guideline page. High school teachers are rarely notable as academics, and one would have to demonstrate the subject of this article passing WP:BIO. There is one reference [10] in the article under consideration to a fairly detailed biographical article about her in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. It's not clear to me that this alone is sufficient, especially since the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography includes a lot of info about purely local figures, such as local council members, etc, who would not ordinarily be considered notable under WP:BIO in the absence of wider coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entry mentioned above, I could not find any other significant coverage. Nothing in GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar. Even plain googling essentially only results in a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors and copies/mirrors of the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entry about her. I'd be happy to reconsider if someone finds more sources, but for now looks like does not pass either of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Schwede66. I've added five sources. Three are authoritative archival primary sources and two are book-length works with extensive coverage of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of and easy online access to a national newspaper archive makes it easier than usual for early New Zealanders to pass WP:GNG, and I think she qualifies. I added several newspaper sources to the article, covering a different headmaster appointment than the one already there as well as some remarkable performances on commonwealth-wide high school essay competitions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 11 December 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, Wifione ^Message 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets notability criteria NealeFamily (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsk92, any thoughts on these new sources? czar ⨹ 23:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shirantha Goonatilake[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT - this person's only claim to fame is that he was killed in an air incident. Also fails notability guidelines under WP:MILPEOPLE as he was only a air commodore and the awards he received were not the highest/second highest. The incident itself might pass notability (45 deaths) and warrant an article in which case this individual's biographical info could be included in that article. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - sorry, missed the bit about air officers at WP:MILPEOPLE.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His rank of air commodore satisfies MILPEOPLE criterion #3, and there's also the distinction of being the "most senior [Sri Lankan] Air Force officer to be killed in action", not in an accident. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an air commodore, which is equivalent to a general officer and thus clearly passes WP:MILPEOPLE (not sure why the nominator thinks it doesn't). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we almost always keep verifiable flag officers. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miloud Ennakhli[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in the Omani top flight. Since this league is not confirmed as fully pro, playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - He plays in Oman Professional League and has scored one goal this season for his club Bowsher FC. http://www.kooora.com/?player=100221&region=-11. One against Al Shabab Club Al-Shabab Club (Oman) on 11/9/2014. He has also played for the Moroccan National Beach Soccer team. http://www.beachsoccer.com/players/Miloud%20Ennakhli This link shows his name in the squad of Moroccan Beach Soccer team. This link http://www.muscatdaily.com/Archive/Sports/Cisse-brace-powers-Fanja-to-victory-against-Bausher-31dg mentions his name where he scored a goal against Oman's Fanja SC last year in the semi finals of Sultan Qaboos Cup.Alhosniomani20 (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Oman is not considered a FULLY professional league and NFOOTY does not cover beach soccer, so GNG must be satisfied which it does not seem to be. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G5. Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Rae[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article contains copyrighted text which was copied and pasted from http://www.mtv.com/artists/dina-rae/biography/. Furthermore, the article creator is a sockpuppet of banned editor MariaJaydHicky, so it should be speedily deleted. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not MariaJaydHicky; you're crackers if you think that there's an ANI about you harrassing me and leave my Dina Rae article alone and MTV's website knicked their info from the Dina Rae Fan Page on Facebook R&B and Hip hop Music (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 applies. The user is already blocked by Randykitty DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JTJ Technologies Pvt Ltd[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources offered are either WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unhelpful. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. Promotional. WP:TNT. --Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, highly promotional. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Re-creation by COI user (with user-name against policy) - Arjayay (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD is here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly promotional - Also judging by the userpage history of the creator [11] the editor ought to be blocked too. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 and G4 - tagged as such Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Without being able to compare this and the previous version, the prose (all that fluff about the principals having visions and dreams) is roughly what I recall from the previous AfD so a potential CSD G4, as well as G11 for being advertising. I see no reason to revise my opinion from the previous time around. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Clinic (Band)[edit]

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

This does not seem to satisfy any of the 12 criteria at WP:BAND. No label; no independent, official website; only third-party source provided is a regional newspaper. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 14:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have to agree. Deb (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:–I have no other option than to agree. Subject of the article fails WP:BAND. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Pre-Colonial Art[edit]

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

Unsourced; claims to be an essay. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start again -- It would be legitimate to have an article on this, but this is not it: it is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. It may be rescuable, but I doubt it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. If you want me to work on it next year, when I have more time, please move it to my user space. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP: withdrawing nomination (non-admin closure). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Allen Olson[edit]

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

Non-notable runner; fails WP:NTRACK. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NTRACK doesn't consider trail runners or ultra runners. Anyone who sets a record at the Western States 100 ought to be considered notable as it is the most prestigious ultramarathon. I would argue that meets WP:ANYBIO ("The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.") In any case, he has a ton of coverage, more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Here are some examples of coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Additionally, he's been named male runner of the year by Competitor Group. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have expanded the article and provided more citations, thus demonstrating his notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Referencing has been beefed up to show notability. I think this is a case where the nominator could have benefited from reviewing WP:BEFORE. G S Palmer, I hope you'll consider withdrawing your nomination so we can move on. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tchaliburton: I've read that. Also, withdrawing my nomination wouldn't mean anything. It'll be closed as "keep" soon enough. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing your nomination allows it to be closed more quickly without the need to waste more time discussing it. But seeing as you're now acknowledging that the subject is notable I think it would be fair for the admin to close it as a snow keep. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 16:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tchaliburton: I acknowledge that they are notable, and that I made a mistake. I don't see any point in rushing to close this, but since you ask, I will withdraw my nomination. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (G7) by Northamerica1000 –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slam Entertainment[edit]

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

Stub about PR company without reliable sources recreated after been speedy deleted under WP:A7. Speedy tag has been removed. There is no claim of notability other than their claim of having work with notable musical acts. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book)[edit]

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

Discussed on the talk(page), book is clearly not notable,just like its author.There is no mention of this book on any other books or Wikipedia:RS. Bladesmulti(talk) 08:39,7 December 2014(UTC)

Delete not notable due to no significant coverage. Fails to meet any criteria--Mevagiss (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, deletion entry is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sharif uddin (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Sharif uddin (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NBOOKS. This is certainly a fringe publicafotion but that by itself would not be an argument to delete it. In fact, if it had indeed been banned by the Indian government and the resultant controversy had been extensively covered, or resulted in Streisand effect-style fame r the book, that could have been a reason to retain the article. However, I have looked and none of the claims in the current version of the article are verifiable through a reliable source; there appears to be no popular/academic media coverage of the book, or any reviews aside from the lone opinion column in Milli Gazette (itself a pretty fringe-y publication, which is not a reliable source for facts. Note also that the 2005 Mili Gazette column says that the book is "recently published" and has "lot of hue and cry all over India". The former contradicts the wikipedia article, which says the book was published/banned in 1969, and the latter is unverifiable and almost surely false, since it seems impossible that such recent national controversy wouldn't leave a trace online.) So the article needs to be deleted unless better sources are found prior to the closing of this afd. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Fails WP:NBOOKS and WP:RS. I was brought in here by a canvassing user who asked me to "vote" here. Fai zan 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As per WP:HEYMANN, with the additional of the new sources article now meets WP:GNG. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tanbircdq: Can you point to the sources in the current version of the article that are both (a) reliable and (b) actually talk about the book? Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article has got enough reliable source. I do not see any purpose to delete this from an encyclopedia like wiki. However, the name should be changed --86.185.186.67 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)— 86.185.186.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article don't seem sufficient, and I don't see any good arguments for keeping here. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Please note that votes of meatpuppets will be striken out.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without going any further, it simply doesn't even pass WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage. If it can't make it past that first hump, the decision to delete shouldn't be too difficult. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - Wikipedia is not an dictionary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of animal names in various languages[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bazj (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Macdonald[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and falls short of WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the ECHL is not a league that satisfies NHOCKEY #1, but rather falls under #4: Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements. This article makes no claim that would satisfy that, and there isn't nearly enough sourcing to claim WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 13 December 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, Michig (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not only doesn't he meet notability standards, but according to the article he's now retired, so apparently he won't be jumping the hurdle in the near future GLG GLG (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if he ever manages to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, and the hockey specific version. There is no deadline; if he meets the guidelines at some point, it can be re-created. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Hyatt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since March. Despite having 19 citations, I have not found any that are acceptable/verify notability. All the ones I have checked were brief mentions, blogs, and other low-quality sources used to make a vanity page appear well-sourced, whereas it isn't actually upon deeper investigation. CorporateM (Talk) 05:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 December 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, Michig (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refbombed promo piece. Hyatt lacks depth of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Only the local interest piece from BerkshiresWeek identified last afd is of any use.By itself it's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of strange laws[edit]

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

The title is WP:POV, what is a strange law from one perspective is perfectly reasonable from another. Also WP:INDISCRIMINATE as any law can be called strange (and most likely has been). I see no way this article can be improved to something encyclopedic. Sjö (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is well sourced and so passes WP:LISTN. Note that, not only are there numerous books on the topic, but the topic is covered by mainstream media such as the BBC and officialdom such as the Law Commission and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. The list entries are all blue links such as the famous chewing gum ban in Singapore. The list therefore performs the useful encyclopedic purpose of indexing our articles of this sort. It is not indiscriminate as care has been taken to only include such well-sourced cases for which we have articles. Andrew D. (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is WP:LISTCRUFT. It's impossible to determine membership in this list because, as the nominator points out, it's entirely subjective. For example, the chewing gum ban in Singapore makes complete sense to me and the statute forbidding Bearing of Armour made sense when it was enacted. Some legal scholars say that prostitution law in Canada is strange because it prohibits solicitation but not actual prostitution. Should it be on the list? Even if we could agree on what is strange this would be unmaintainable if we include every strange law from the Babylonians to present day town ordinances. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not policy and so, per WP:PGL, carries little weight here. Andrew D. (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:LISTCRUFT does a solid job of explaining why this would be WP:BADIDEA. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 00:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title is no more POV than List of weird buildings, which was found to have consensus at the "village pump" page. WP:INDISCRIMINATE has no application whatsoever to this article as it does not fall into any of the four criteria of that policy. The list criteria is not subjective: this is (or should be) a list of laws that have been called "strange" etc, in express words, by at least one reliable source. The list of weird buildings was found to be acceptable on the same basis. (To put it another way, it was decided at the "village pump" that there is generally consensus for articles titled "list of weird X"). There is no such thing as an unmaintainable list: we are NOTPAPER. Draft:List of unusual laws should possibly be merged into this article. James500 (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that discussion - do you have a link, please? An even better precedent is the list of unusual deaths which was praised by Time Magazine as one of Wikipedia's top ten pages. We even have a category for such lists. Andrew D. (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the discussion headed "proposal: lists must be based on objective criteria" in archive 110 of WP:VPP. It may be that my memory of the details of the discussion is not completely correct. James500 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That discussion was focussed on the List of films considered the worst. The strong consensus was that such lists are ok. Andrew D. (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - at least, in theory, this could be fixed through normal editing and sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a clearly notable subject and a list is certainly a reasonable way of covering it for Wikipedia. Care will need to be taken with inclusion criteria and with the sourcing - many of the "strange law" books do little enough checking as to make them unreliable sources - but that's a question of list management, not of list deletion. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where this discussion is going, and I think it's important to have very strict criteria for inclusion and sourcing, but that discussion is better had at the article talk page when this discussion is closed. Sjö (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Andrew D. says fufils WP:LISTN. Also reasons for nomination are weak: WP:NPOV is not applicable, as most reasonable persons would find these laws strange, maybe not always when they were they were passed (Wearing armour in Parliament), but are mighty strange they are still laws. Therefore WP:INDISCRIMINATE also does not apply, unless it could be argued that these laws where not notable in themselves. ----Mrjulesd (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has sources so it is notable. The article could use more examples with sources, but it is good enough to keep. Frmorrison (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list of made up trivia as has been said strange is hard to define most are perfectly sane to those that inacted them. Nothing in the article mentions why somebody or anybody would find the very few items on the list "strange". MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So you don't believe any of these "made up" laws were proposed or enacted? There seems to be a lot of references in the relevant articles. And you don't find any of them strange in any way? The references in the list would seem to disagree. Or are you just opposed to the idea that any laws could be seen as being strange and unusual? Again there seems to be a lot of sources that disagree with that sentiment. --Mrjulesd (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigourney Street (CDOT station)[edit]

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

This is a proposed bus stop that does not exist yet. Even if it did exist, bus stops aren't inherently notable and this one fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for non-existent bus stops on this line:

Tchaliburton (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the nomination is demonstrably incorrect on one point, and arguably wrong on two others. First, while the articles have not been updated in a while, a quick search reveals that these are not "proposed" stations. Construction has been under way for several years, and the busway (which is nearly complete) is scheduled to open on March 28, 2015. I don't think this amount of finished concrete is just "proposed". New Britain and Newington are additionally proposed to be rail stations under two separate commuter rail plans; however, that does not impact what has already been constructed.

Second, these are not conventional bus stops; they are vastly overbuilt bus rapid transit stops more akin to light rail or even commuter rail stations than to sign-and-a-plexiglass-box bus stops. Take a look at current aerial images.

Third, notability is not difficult to establish. Most of these stops were previously local stations on the New York and New England Railroad: Park Street (as Parkville), Flatbush Avenue (as Charter Oak, plus Oakwood on the Hartford and New Haven Railroad), Elmwood, Newington Junction (both railroads), Cedar Street (as Claytons), East Street (as Pratts), and New Britain (both railroads). Tyler City Station] has detailed history (with meticulously listed reliable sources) and often public domain images on every of those. Several - particularly New Britain and Newington Junction with its restored depot - have other easily findable sources available; I'm currently sitting in front of two different books with useful information on both. Seven of these ten articles thus easily meet the notability guideline. Even the three stations without independent railroad history have site plans, construction updates, and other documents available. While all of these articles need improvement and updating, deletion is a poor choice for any. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the project is under construction, notability still needs to be established per WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a bus station not a bus stop. User Pi seems to have access to good sources and per WP:AGF we should allow him to get on with this without disruption. There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with Hartford,_Connecticut#Buses and we should prefer these to deletion per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot - Had these been created even 5 months I'd say Keep... but they were created in 2008 so why the long delay in building/opening these? ... Nonetheless it's obvious no one knows when (or even If) they'll be built/opened, So until something concrete pops up I'll have to say Delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. Multiple recent sources including the official web site list March 28, 2015. And concrete has already popped up (literally and figuratively) - check out the links to pictures above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -It exists and has been built but do we honestly need different articles on each bus station? ... IMHO Merging would be a much better solution but anyway I personally disagree with this entirely but there you go .... Shit happens life moves on. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted above, these are not bus stops but are comparable with LRT, subway or commuter rail stations. The busway will carry similar volumes of traffic - but in buses rather than trains. They have a physical station structure and are under construction. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not valid criteria for inclusion. WP:GNG needs to be met. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "bus stops" which is the criterion that you gave for deletion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the criterion I gave for deletion is that they do not meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're blindly groping at GNG without actually reading it. It requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I provided a link to a site in which histories of seven of these stations have been compiled using several to dozens of newspaper articles, internal railroad documents, and other sources, all of which are viable and reliable sources that can be accessed and cited here. Do you dispute that these satisfy the GNG; if so, how?

It appears you did not follow sections of WP:BEFORE, notably searching for sources (a Google search would have invalidated several of your claims) and engaging in other avenues such as article talk pages and relevant Wikiprojects. Can you please explain why you think deletion now is appropriate when you did not perform such basic actions first? To me, this came across as heavy-handed and a very odd way about things. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find credible, third-party sources denoting notability for each bus stop. What link are you talking about? Tchaliburton (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I perhaps was not clear; let me elucidate. Seven of the eleven BRT stations on the line (all except Sigourney, Kane, and East Main, plus Hartford Union Station which is under no doubt) are located at the sites of former train stations - five local stops plus the important junction stations at Newington and New Britain. Mainline passenger rail stations in the United States are essentially guaranteed notability, as their effects on local geography and history tend to result in numerous sources available. In Conecticut, the Tyler City Station project (run by several notable transit historians) has gathered detailed histories of every single station in the station, with meticulous listing of the sources they used to compile the histories. In most cases, these are documents such as old newspapers and public valuation books that qualify as reliable, independent sources.

My contention is that the busway station articles should be merged with the (as yet unwritten) information on the old stations. Integrating histories across modes in this manner is accepted practice on Wikipedia; there are numerous light rail and rapid transit station articles that include histories of mainline rail stations they replaced. This presents an organized flow of both historical and current information, and leaves those articles as more than one-sentence stubs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Any station that has been a railway station of any significance should be included. But the article needs to be written with an integrated history, as you suggest. So the article should be about the station in general, not just about the bus station. Per WP:BALASPS the article needs to be balanced "with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." In this case that would mean the articles should primarily be about the historic stations. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is apparent that the stations are notable, as they are not on a minor bus line. Newington is also planned to be a train station, so that one should not have even been considered for deletion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These aren't "bus stops" but in fact transitway stations, much the same way Queensway Station (OC Transpo) is a transitway station.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Number one, as other users have pointed out, these aren't bus stops, they're transit stations that utilize buses, much in the same way a metro system has stations. Number two, the line that these stations run on, CTfastrak, is going to be opened on March 28th, 2015. I've mentioned a few times on some talk pages that I'm going to be working on the articles for CTfastrak as well as its stations. As of now, the only thing I can write about is the history of how they were developed since the stations aren't officially open yet, even though they're getting preliminary use from public officials as if they have been finished. And as I've said before, if anyone wants to help me with that, please write me on my Talk page. TwilightKing81 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightKing81 (talk • contribs)
Keep, per Pi, SecondaryWaltz, Oakshade, and others. As Kevin Rutherford also noted, stations like Newington are also proposed New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line stations. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, content on Wikipedia must be verifiable by citation to reliable sources. If you're voting keep at an AfD you need to show, specifically, that these sources exist. As no one has been able to demonstrate that the subject passes the general notability guidelines, there is a consensus to delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NIBS (bus company)[edit]

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

Small non notable bus company - Fails WP:NCORP & WP:GNG - (Checked everywhere and literally found no evidence of notability, Also the articles been up for 8 years and has barely improved and IMHO what with the poor lack of information out there I don't think It'll be improved anytime soon.) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability.Charles (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This reminds me of Davey's attempt to declare Nu-Venture as a "non-notable" operator (I'm sincerely hoping it's just a coincidence that every time I look at Wikipedia, which is pretty infrequently, I seem to find an attempt by Davey to delete a bus company - I hope it's not something he's actually doing regularly).

He claims he "Checked everywhere and literally found no evidence of notability", yet it took me 5 minutes to find a local newspaper report about how they were the operator selected to run the long campaigned for service from Wickford to Basildon’s Festival Leisure Park, but the proposal to cut the funding (and thus the service because it's not profitable enough on its own), is understandably causing controversy. http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11255717.print/

While the article doesn't contain much information right now, based on my investigations, that's not because there is none out there. It's because Davey and Charlesdrakew have been systematically deleting every scrap of information from bus company articles like this as "trivia" or "non-encyclopedic", cutting them to the bare bones so they merely to say where the company operates and how many buses it has. That's why a reader, if they came to Wikipedia to follow up on that press coverage, they don't find any information about whether or not that route is still running.

The fact is, Davey (and Charles) don't seem to have any topical knowledge of the UK bus industry at all, so aren't really in any position to judge relative importance in the field, certainly not given they already clearly have a bias against the very idea that Wikipedia should have any information in it about bus transport at all, and seem to be doing their best to limit it to the absolute minimum amount (which results in articles like this, which are no use to anyone for any purpose - even though I have regular cause to research the history and current state of the UK bus industry, I already know not to even bother consulting Wikipedia because the paucity of information like this article is the norm, not the exception).

It's an indisputable fact though, one that needs to be put on record here regardless of the outcome, that in the UK context, while NIBS cannot be described as a "big" operator, with 40 routes and 28 buses, it cannot be described as a "small" company by any stretch of the imagination either. The level of investment, training, staffing and marketing required to get to that stage is not insignificant, not in the regulatory environment that exists these days.

Which brings me to my next point - I have absolutely no doubt that when Davey (and Charles) claim to not find any evidence about bus related topics, they are not consulting (or even considering) the coverage an operator of this size always gets in the print media, such as magazines or books. Once is a mistake. Twice is a pattern. I think it's pretty obvious that the extent of their checking only goes so far as typing the company name into Google, and dismissing anything that's not a national newspaper report.

And as I said in the Nu-Venture case, when they're doing subsidised or schools work, it's a certainty that they will covered in the local press lots of times. I don't know enough about Essex to judge if it's firmly in the second tier or not, size wise, but if pushed I would bet that it is (see the Nu-Venture deletion page for what I mean by "second tier operator").

I do know for a fact this particular company has had a front page cover in an issue of Buses Magazine, because I've seen it with my own eyes. I have no doubt that this company will have been subject to "significant coverage" in other print media, or the many books that get published on subjects like bus transport in the English hinterlands, where you would no doubt find information to add to the article.

I suspect a negative feedback loop is in effect, the end result of which is that Wikipedia coverage of UK bus topics doesn't even come close to matching what is actually out there in the real world. It's a shame that Wikipedia, which purports to be the free alternative, in topics like this, is actually forcing people to stick to the old model of having to pay for information in the form of magazines or books.

I've lost count of the number of times I've read a historical fact in a book or magazine about UK buses/operators/routes, then failed to find it, or anything even close to it, in Wikipedia. And in anticipation of their accusations that I'm simply a 'bus fan' or some of the other insulting terms I've seen be used on Wikipedia against those who they see as merely trying to add/retain trivia, I'm talking about the sort of basic facts which form the cornerstone of mainstream national coverage from the BBC no less, such as that seen in this year's Year of the Bus celebrations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25338867. It is of course absolutely no surprise to me to see that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Year of the Bus. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. I very rarely nominate articles at all (I'll admit like everyone here we all at times nominate articles that are quite simply a bad mistake at times)

2. The Nu-Venture article was and still is non notable in terms of sourcing... Which BTW I fail to see how this has any relevance anyway,

3. Last but not least please stop following me around - I appreciate you're a bus enthusiast & want every bus company here saved but unfortunately not every company can be kept, And instead of moaning about a previous AFD and the fact You like buses & what not please cite a real reason to keep, (And as a side note editors should comment on the content not the editors, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How predictable. Even though I said that was exactly what you would do - here you are attempting to dismiss me as just a bus 'fan' who wants to "save every article" just because I like buses (I note with some amusement that you have since changed your original comment to read bus "enthusiast", while seeking to advise *me* not to comment on content not the person). Your "every" comment makes no sense at all - I've only tried to save this one and Nu-Venture so far. I'm not following you around at all, if this is the only bus operator you've tried to delete since Nu-Venture, then it's a complete coincidence that I noticed it, I wasn't even looking up anything bus related today (for the reasons already stated - that's not what I come to Wikipedia for, because I already know the coverage of it is in a shit state, of use to absolutely nobody who is actually coming here for knowledge). The two issues are related because your inability to see their merit seems to have a common cause - your apparent ignorance of the subject matter and total lack of appreciation that there's a world of sources out there on this subject beyond the internet. It's pretty ridiculous of you to be claiming here that Nu-Venture is still not notable, when you yourself withdrew that attempt because "the community deem it notable." Now that I look more closely, their fleet size and number of routes are remarkably similar in fact - 41/30 vs 40/28, so why you thought the community would come to a different conclusion in this case is not clear to me....perhaps you can put that into terms people will understand, so that it doesn't just look like you decided to have another go with a different article because you just don't like buses. Perhaps I should be following you around if you're this reluctant to accept the will of the community. Who knows how many bus articles you might have tried, or succeeded, in deleting since August. I only have your word this isn't a regular activity of yours. I certainly see your name all over the edit history of bus articles when trying to figure out why it doesn't say X or Y. Like it or not, the reasons to delete this article are not obvious to me - not because I'm a bus "fan", but because I happen to know a lot more about buses and bus operators than you clearly do, and know exactly how much coverage operators of this size get in real sources in the printed media, compared to actual "small" and not-notable operators. And from what I've seen, pointing out how you appear not to know anything about the subject, and haven't got the first clue where to look for sources on it, is a "real" reason on Wikipedia to keep an article - because asking to delete something you don't understand and can't research properly isn't a "real" reason in the first place. It's not quite incompetence, but only because I don't doubt that you did actually try a Google search before coming to this conclusion. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me I know rather a lot about buses and I would probably say I know a hell of a lot more than you! but anyway You clearly have your opinions and I clearly have mine so lets just leave it at that. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I trust you? What kind of a bus enthusiast has never read a magazine or a book about buses? The very magazines and books that do actually cover operators like this in detail, precisely because they are in no way "small", not in terms of the UK industry at least (where you only need one bus to be able to legally call yourself a bus operator). No bus enthusiast would be claiming that there's no information out there which could be added to this page (which, you will note, doesn't even say when the company was founded), not unless they were trying to deliberately deceive people. Come on Dave, given what you said above, are you really claiming that if I looked, I wouldn't be able to find a book or a magazine which mentions when NIBS was founded (I'm deliberately ignoring the companies house database which also gives that info, as that data exists for any registered company, whatever their size). The fact is, based on the evidence, I don't think you know anything about buses and therefore are most certainly not what you claim to be (an enthusiast) - you certainly seemed not to know that Nu-Venture was well known for its fleet makeup (again, making the same ridiculous claim that it gets no coverage, when in reality companies with unusual fleets like Nu-Venture's get extra attention precisely because of that). What kind of bus enthusiast wouldn't know that? I'll tell you what - one that knows nothing about one of the major types of London bus, the Leyland Titan B15, which Nu-Venture latterly operated the last examples of in public service. As anyone could probably work out, a claimed bus enthusiast based in Kent (as Dave is) would be the last person not to know that sort of stuff (since Nu-Venture is one of the major operators in Kent). I suspect the reason you're wanting to "leave it at that" is because if I asked you to demonstrate that you do actually know something about buses, you'd not be able to. This is not much different to an aviation enthusiast based in (insert your preferred airport name) claiming not to know anything about an airline that is based there. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. aycliffe^talk 14:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Case in point. Today, I was reading about the operator R&I Coaches, which was a London bus operator which was taken over and absorbed by a bigger company, MTL London Northern, many years ago (20 years to be precise). Despite the fact that R&I too never operated more than 40 buses, you can find lots of information in books and magazines about them, in considerable detail (enough to write a Wikipedia article). Why? Because of the various things about them which made them notable in the field of bus transport, particularly regarding the regulatory regime in London at the time as well as in terms of what was happening with vehicle design at the time (the details of which I won't bore you here with - if you're interested, perhaps Dave the supposed bus enthusiast will be able to tell you - LOL). Although of course, because all this happened long before the internet, and no doubt long before the likes of Charles and Dave were even born, if you simply do a 5 minute Google search, you of course will find "no evidence of notability". As a result, unsurprisingly, there is precious little information in Wikipedia about R&I Coaches at all, let alone a full article. Ironically it gets most mentions in bus route articles, which of course shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all according to Dave and Charles, as "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" (and good luck trying to get them to explain exactly what kind of 'travel guide' tells you what bus operator ran the route 20 years previously). Even the company which took over R&I only warrants two lines on Wikipedia in the article of its own parent, MTL (transport company), and then only to say it existed from 1994 to 1998. That's the entire Wikipedia entry for a bus company that operated hundreds of buses in London over a four year period. Pathetic. But this is the sort of crap you end up with in your so called encyclopedia of everything, when the decision of what to include and what to exclude is left to ignorant people like Charles and Dave, who despite the latter's claims to the contrary, clearly know absolutely nothing about the subject. If he still wants to claim to be a bus enthusiast, or know far more about buses than me, perhaps he can explain, if it's not down to the sheer ignorance of people like him and Charles, what it is about Wikipedia which means it is doing such a shit job of writing about obviously notable bus operators like MTL Northern, and their obviously notable acquisitions like R&I, if the very concept of 'notability' is whether or not other people write about them in books or magazines? For all I know (and which is why I no longer even bother checking Wikipedia for historical info like this, even though it's clearly well within its supposed remit), there may have even been an article here about R&I before, and it was successfully deleted by Dave or someone equally as ignorant of the topic, for the very same reasons he wants to delete this article. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't cite any websites independent from the company itself, therefore failing WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NCORP. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG, and indeed WP:NCORP, requires "sources", not "websites". Am I seriously the only person here who understands that "sources" includes the print media? Unless or until these people make a specific declaration that they have consulted the print media in these various pronouncements of lack of evidence of notability, then I'm not seeing any reason why their views shouldn't simply be summarily dismissed as patently invalid. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's "print media" available to you, then please add it to the list of references. Those things aren't available to everyone. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to you my previous statements on that matter at the Nu-Venture discussion. Don't confuse me telling you it's out there, with a willingness to do the leg-work for you. It's your website, it's up to you to stick to your own rules. All I'm asking for is a bit of integrity here - by all means delete NIBS for lack of notability if you must, but only after you've properly demonstrated you understand what sort of coverage a UK bus operator of this size actually gets, and what sort of an article could be written if someone was stupid enough to spend the time researching it and summarizing it here, all for free, like a complete mug, instead of doing what I do and sticking to paying for your knowledge, on the assumption it's actually being written by subject experts. Davey has already demonstrated, twice now, that he's not doing his due diligence in this subject area, which if his claims of being knowledgable about buses are indeed true, is pretty bad form. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Wikipedia is just as much your website as mine, and I am not obligated in any way to improve this article, because we're all volunteers here. Second, we can't take your word and add refs to printed media without proper research, and currently you are the only one able to do any proper research, because we don't know what newspaper said what, when. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're just going to have to, as I'm really not interested in doing it for you, and I certainly wouldn't ever put my name to Wikipedia, not given how poor a resource it is in this field. To give you a specific example - I mentioned above that that this company has had at least one front page cover in an issue of Buses Magazine. In terms of effort, there's a world of difference between me telling you that out of the goodness of my heart, and me actually having to find out precisely which issue it was, just so I could tell you here (let alone reading the article and adding all the juicy bits to Wikipedia, like the founding date!). This is part of what I'm talking about - publications like Buses Magazine don't make any of this info available online because they're still making money out of publishing it in print form - that shouldn't mean that Wikipedia ignores them as a source (and if Dave is being honest about being a bus enthusiast, he'll be able to tell you just how dominant Buses Magazine is as a source, at least for contemporary information, which of course NIBS falls into). To ignore the very existence of the dominant publication in the field of contemporary UK bus transport when talking about the notability of a current UK bus operator is, as I hope you can see, quite a perverse stance to take. At least it is to outsiders like me, I'm starting to realise though that it may be more commonplace an approach than people might reasonably expect. You're not obligated to improve the article, of course not, but you are expected to follow your own rules before you delete one out of simple ignorance. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you're the one voting to keep it, not me. If you want the article to be kept, then you should be willing to fix the article's problems. That's all I'm going to say. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And? You're the one wanting to delete it. If you're not willing to listen to the reasons why that would be a mistake, what does that say about you? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly establishing corporate notability is going to need wider secondary coverage than a specialist bus fan magazine, and that is the right place for that kind of detail. Second, if you are not interested in helping to improve Wikipedia why are you wasting so many bytes moaning here?Charles (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trolling Charles. Anyone knows (or would be able to tell with a little research) that Buses Magazine is more than just a "specialist bus fan magazine". There's so many things wrong with that description, it's just not even worth explaining, since it's pretty obvious to me by now that the only reason you say such things is to troll. Suffice to say it illustrates your complete ignorance of the topic quite well. If you're willing to dismiss a source like Buses Magazine, then you're probably not going to find anything to write on Wikipedia about any bus operator in the UK (which appears to be your goal). I mean, and I think I already know the answer, you do actually realise who it is that writes whole books on the biggest bus operators in the UK? Hint - it's not bloody Penguin Books. It's the publisher of titles like Buses Magazine. I await with amusement to see what the Stagecoach Group article is going to look like once you strip out all the sources your ignorant mind is apparently willing to dismiss as "specialist fan" fare. I note with some hilarity that currently, the only sort of source establishing 'corporate notability' of the Stagecoach Group on Wikipedia, are simply newspapers. Some encyclopedia that is. How many books about Stagecoach have been written? Why am I even asking you, as if you'd even have a clue. Whatever the true nature of 'specialist' sources is on Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks that when GNG or NCORP mention "sources", they don't simply mean newspapers. And while I said I'm not interested in adding to Wikipedia, I can certainly do my best to stop the removal of what's already here simply for reasons of pure ignorance of the topic. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's remarkable how moaning about me is far more important than attempting to fix the fucking article, Sure I nommed it because I didn't find jack, But If you can find something add it to the fucking article instead of moaning about how shit I am at one thing or another. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rowland Private Island[edit]

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

I can't determine that this island even exists. Possible hoax. Tchaliburton (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it's improved. No evidence to indicate notability. Sure, I own a car, but that's not a Wikipedia article. — kikichugirl ^inquire 07:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence that this place exists. Andrew D. (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as evidence of it even existing, If it does by a miracle exist there's nothing to suggest it does.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No trace of this island found in search. If it's not a hoax, it's extremely non-notable. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 07:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Lawn (GRTC BRT station)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of bus stops. This bus line doesn't even exist yet. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While AFD isn't WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are many many other bus stops and bus stations recently created and I've noticed them doing new page patrol. Perhaps a whole AfD of all related articles is in order. — kikichugirl ^inquire 07:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following unremarkable bus stops on this non-existent route:

The only stop I'm not nominating is Main Street Station (Richmond), which is a historic building. Tchaliburton (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 07:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 07:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all seemingly nonnotable (future) bus stops. Consensus is that (even current) bus stops are not inherently notable. Deadbeef 07:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all rather irrational to even consider deletion. Why keep the Hartford-New Britain Busway articles then? Quidster4040 (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tchaliburton, you really do not understand the difference between conventional buses and BRT, do you? Quidster4040 (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford-New Britain Busway article is much more substantial and developed than the GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Line article, which doesn't even have any references, just external links. The line appears to be proposed, but not confirmed. If it never exists, then it's probably not notable. Merging all of these stops into the main article might be a good idea, though. — kikichugirl ^inquire 07:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quidster4040, WP:ALLORNOTHING isn't a valid argument. Tchaliburton (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tchaliburton, that's an essay, not the rules. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make your argument valid. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does, you cannot use opinions to base your convoluted argument because you're mad that there's an article of a bus line station. Quidster4040 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Quidster4040 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — kikichugirl ^inquire 19:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all—as non-notable. A simple listing of spots that doesn't try to be a schedule might be in order in the parent bus line article, but without any further information, this isn't even a valid merger situation. Imzadi 1979 → 08:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIR - my official !vote, since I realized I didn't put one. They're not notable and don't have enough RS to claim notability. Unfortunately A7 does not apply to places/stops like these. If there's any important information, they should be merged into the main article before being deleted without a redirect. Maybe once the line is created, then the articles can be created if they're notable (WP:TOOSOON) — kikichugirl ^inquire 10:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot per WP:NOTDIR - We don't need articles on bus stops, Nothing to Merge & pointless Redirecting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still in the study and planning phase and even if implemented will not be a dedicated busway. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Line, with the exceptions of Staples Mill (GRTC BRT station), which should be redirected to Richmond Staples Mill Road (Amtrak station), and obviously Main Street Station (Richmond), not simply because it's a historical building as the nominee suggests, but because it's a railroad station that already has an existing article. User:Quidster4040, clearly has a valid argument over the fact that these presumably mere "bus stops" are for Bus Rapid Transit, and that if they go, so should the Hartford-New Britain Busway station articles. On the other hand, User:Secondarywaltz has pointed out that the system is still in the studying and planning phase. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa There is a big difference between curbside bus stops and real busway stations, which have structures and additional facilities, like an LRT or commuter rail station. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is this not still a BRT system? Are they being planned as something other than curbside bus stops? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some sections will have buses running in dedicated lanes in the median and at other places mixed traffic operation with curbside stops. These will just be enhanced bus stops within the confines of the road - not true station structures within a separate busway. Read about it in Wikipedia and follow the links. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all by routes. Most bus routes remain stable for years, and are of enough significance to be included somewhere, tho not as separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Main Street Station (Richmond) per WP:NOTDIR. While in general I agree with editor DGG about bus routes, this non-notable list does not need to be anywhere in Wikipedia. The GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Line article about the proposed bus rapid transit line in Richmond, Virginia is fine without it. --Bejnar (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 07:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Serdena[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. I see that he has won an Emmy. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Le Sourd[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Tchaliburton (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has won and been nominated for multiple awards, and there is substantial coverage as well, satisfying WP:GNG: [12][13][14] --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wilkinson (costume designer)[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Tchaliburton (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several nominations by the Costume Designers Guild as well as oscar and BAFTA noms. Betty Logan (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per L and BL MarnetteD|Talk 06:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Prouty[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award and Emmy nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Tchaliburton (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated for an Emmy on several occasions. Betty Logan (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Pasqua-Casny[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Tchaliburton (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards, including three Emmy wins. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three Emmys and an oscar nom. Clearly notable. Betty Logan (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Struthers[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two oscar nominations; not exactly a one hit wonder. Betty Logan (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Baumgarten[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards, including winning an Emmy. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only nominated for an Oscar but won multiple ACE Eddie Awards [15][16][17] and a primetime Emmy in 2008 [18] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An emmy win and oscar nom. Betty Logan (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Pensa[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Clayton (visual effects)[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Tchaliburton (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards, including two BAFTAs. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A win from Visual Effects Society and several oscar and BAFTA noms. Betty Logan (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Reynolds (visual effects)[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won several awards from the Visual Effects Society, plus and oscar and BAFTA nom. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Townsend[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards, including a BAFTA. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Tubach[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards, including a BAFTA. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. One does not "have" to win an award to be notable in their field. BTW these do not fail WP:CREATIVE MarnetteD|Talk 21:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Guyett[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards, including three Oscar noms, four BAFTA noms and a BAFTA win. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. MarnetteD|Talk 21:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edson Williams[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards, including a BAFTA win. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. MarnetteD|Talk 21:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Brozenich[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per L. As has been pointed out WP:BEFORE should be read by the OP MarnetteD|Talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has won three awards from the Visual Effects Society, plus an oscar and emmy nom. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sudick[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for SIX Oscars! And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Three award wins and 24 nominations. Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. As has been pointed out WP:BEFORE should be read by the OP MarnetteD|Talk 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Alexander (visual effects)[edit]

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

Unsuccessful Academy Award nominee. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Has been nominate for several other awards, including winning a BAFTA. And per WP:BEFORE, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Lugnuts said. An Oscar nomination is a major recognition regardless of not winning. Not only that, I found coverage about the person very easily here and here. Tchaliburton, per WP:BEFORE, you should research the topic outside its Wikipedia article to see if it is notable. The Wikipedia article's condition has no bearing on whether or not the person is notable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per L and E. A person does not have to win an award to be notable in their field. MarnetteD|Talk 21:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lugnuts. A BAFTA award win is arguably the highest film honor in the UK, after a BAFTA Fellowship. Add to that an oscar nom and the man is notable. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 21:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fleece jacket[edit]

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

There's no reason to have a stub for every combination of garment and material. Fails WP:GNG and there's no content worth merging elsewhere. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not seeing any reason to discriminate this popular type of garment. Andrew D. (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any indication of notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be plenty of coverage visible in the search links above - typically in periodicals about backpacking and other outdoor pursuits. Andrew D. (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing independent sources discussing the fleece jacket and what is expected of it. For example, [19] which, although a review of fleeces, IS in a reliable source national newspaper, and describes what is expected of them, and the specific purposes they fulfil. I also found [20] which starts out by describing how fleece jackets have been an important part of outdoor clothing for 30 years, and gives details on what is usually expected of fleece jackets. A good description in GQ Magazine here describing how such jackets were worn and their associations. Although I think the Huffington Post is not always considered a reliable source, it is another source that specifically discusses and considers fleece jackets. And here's a critical article on these garments - so it's not all promotional. Another critical piece here about how fleeces, by shedding fibres, are not considered appropriate in many surgical environments (and another source here to back up. There's clear coverage specifically discussing fleece jackets in this book, explaining how these jackets compare to other alternatives. In fact, a political journalist has even written a whole book about a fleece jacket, describing its entire manufacturing process, where it was made, all the processes in its design and production, and its eventual end in landfill once its useful life has ended. And this is what I found after only 15 minutes Googling and searching. Mabalu (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be product reviews and passing mentions. Made on Earth is the only piece with significant depth and it's about globalization, using a fleece jacket to illustrate the point. You could find similar coverage for wool socks, cotton underwear or silk blouses. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. A fleece is an individual garment in its own right. Clearly it's being called a jacket here as a disambiguator in order to distinguish it from the skin or the fabric. It's not like silk blouses or wool socks. A fleece does not particularly resemble any other jacket and there is more than sufficient coverage clarifying what makes it distinct, the purposes it's expected to have, and notes on the messages and impressions it gives when worn. Mabalu (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there anything here that can't be included at polar fleece? T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 15:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polar fleece is about the fabric, not the jacket. The fleece (the garment) is identified by its fabric, just like jeans are identified by their fabric, but just as not all jeans are made of jean, fleeces are not necessarily made from the one fabric called polar fleece. There are references to cotton fleeces and fleeces made using other fibres. So yes, I'd say there is a lot here that couldn't be included at polar fleece without throwing the focus of that article off by having a huge section that isn't 100% relevant. Mabalu (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we separate articles for fleece vest and fleece pants then? T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 16:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While sleeveless jackets made of fleece could legitimately be called fleece vests, and trousers could be made of fleece, the former is essentially the same thing as a fleece, whether sleeved or not. Sleeved status doesn't matter. There's no such thing as "fleece pants" as a concept in itself - probably tracksuit bottoms or "joggers" would be closest thing to that. At the end of the day, I would suggest that this article be renamed Fleece (jacket) or Fleece (clothing) which would cover both sleeved and unsleeved versions of the fleece. Mabalu (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are fleece pants. Also fleece socks, even fleece underwear. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 17:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what your point is any more - it seems to have degenerated into pointing that other crap made of fleece exists and asking why they don't have articles, and quite frankly that's irrelevant to the question about fleece jackets. A fleece is equivalent to a leather jacket in that it is a garment in its own right with cultural presence and wearer significance. It has been worn almost non-stop over a period of 30 years and counting, is a staple of modern school and work uniforms, is a standard merchandise staple for custom printing companies, and is an essential part of the wardrobe for a not insignificant percentage of the community. When you say "fleece jacket", people know exactly what you mean, and if they don't, I'm not responsible for their sartorial illiteracy. They will come to Wikipedia looking for further information on it - what it signifies - when it was first made - why it is called a fleece. That makes it an encyclopaedic subject. And on that note - I'm done, I see no point in arguing any more as I feel I've made my case. Mabalu (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there's nothing special about this piece of clothing. It does not meet WP:GNG. Simply existing doesn't make something encyclopedic. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a major distinctive product, and there are sufficient references. Most other garments or other objects made of this material won't be notable, but some might--I think we could conceivably have an article on "fleece blanket". DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC);[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Ranford[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY as a seventh round draft pick who has never played in the NHL and has too few games in the AHL. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG. Created by now-indeffed editor with a long, long history of defying notability guidelines of which he didn't approve. Ravenswing 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Can be created if/when the player becomes notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bitetto[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY as a sixth round draft pick who has never played in the NHL and has too few games in the AHL (ECHL doesn't count per WP:NHOCKEY/LA). Tchaliburton (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Can be created if/when the player becomes notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin McPherson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY as a hockey player who has never played in the NHL and has to few games in the AHL to be considered inherently notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He doesn't meet the notability standards - and he's at an age and post-draft experience level where he's not an 'on the cusp' prospect that might might notability in a short span of time GLG GLG (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Can be created if/when the player becomes notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Asperup[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player. Playing in the AL-Bank Ligaen does not confer notability per WP:NHOCKEY as it is not listed under WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The league this player is in doesn't meet the lowest standards for inclusion and the article itself doesn't include any other information that would make this individual noteworthy. GLG GLG (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG. Created by now-indeffed editor with a long, long history of defying notability guidelines of which he didn't approve. Ravenswing 16:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Can be created if/when the player becomes notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to District of Columbia Public Schools#Elementary schools--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben W. Murch Elementary School[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Elementary schools are not normally considered notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: elementary schools are not notable per se, and this one does not appear notable in and of itself. Quis separabit? 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to District of Columbia Public Schools#Elementary schools. Elementary schools are not presumed to be notable, and the only sources I found covering this article consisted of routine coverage from local news sources. I would recommend redirecting to the District of Columbia since this article has been getting several views a day and it would be helpful to redirect people to a relevant section in the article I mentioned. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nominator concurs with a redirect rather than a delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to District of Columbia Public Schools#Elementary schools as per standard practice fo non notable schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salar Zarza[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth secondary support. Award appears to be a minor award given to ensemble cast, not the individual. References are press releases or other primary items reddogsix (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000#4077_Asuka. czar ⨹ 23:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4077 Asuka[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Taking to AfD rather than prod or redirect because it has two references, articles in several other languages and several possible redirect targets. Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless you plan on nominating the other 999 articles on List of minor planets: 4001–5000... and the thousand articles on List of minor planets: 5001–6000... and so on. Deadbeef 23:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other similar non-notable articles exist doesn't mean this one should too; instead, it means that they should be speedily redirected, as suggested by the notability guideline WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000 per WP:NASTRO; a textbook failure of the guidelines. A single paper doesn't make this asteroid notable, as it does not constitute significant coverage. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deadbeef, of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that isn't a suitable argument in an AfD discussion. Have you read WP:NASTRO and think it meets the guidelines? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn: Perhaps I was unclear. I am familiar with NASTRO and its guidelines. What I'm saying is that there are thousands of similar articles that have been spun out and the answer is not to redirect them all individually once individual editors happen to stumble across their pages and decide they're not worth keeping. This isn't your garden-variety case of OSE; this is systemic. What I am saying is this needs is a RfC in the list article or NASTRO or somewhere else to determine the fate of these thousands of practically identical pages. Either NASTRO has to change to accommodate them or they should all be redirected to their parent lists (except, obviously, the ones that currently meet NASTRO.) AfD is an inappropriate venue to do this. Deadbeef 21:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except there already were many such discussions with the same outcome, to redirect these. The only reason this specific one is here is because it might have a better claim to notability than the others, although consensus here so far says it does not seem to. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - User:Boleyn, what are the other redirect targets you have in mind (other than List of minor planets: 4001–5000)? As far as I can tell, when these minor planet articles are redirected, they are always pointed towards their "List of minor planets: XXXX-YYYY" article. "Pepper" @ 21:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The possibilities for this would be List of minor planets: 4001–5000 and List of minor planets/4001–4100, and to a lesser extent, Meanings of minor planet names: 4001–4500 and List of named minor planets (A-C). Boleyn (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh, I never realized that we transclude the tables. I guess I'm still in favor of redirecting to the full list (4001–5000) rather than the subpage (4001–4100). "Pepper" @ 02:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate "list of minor planets" page. WP:NASTRO is intentionally flexible, but pretty clear that objects such as this should be redirected - and previous consensus in numerous discussions and AfDs support that. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only a Fool[edit]

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

There are no reliable references in this page. Song is not notable and singer is not notable too. -TheSawTooth (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article satisfies WP:NSONGS. The charts table on the article says that the song has been on the Norwegian Singles Chart, the Norwegian Radio Chart, the Luxembourg Singles Chart, and the Swedish Singles Chart. #1 on WP:NSONGS is "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts", so the article satisfies that by being on 4 of the charts. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marit Larsen. While I find the prods of her albums ill-judged, and the deletion nom of the artist as inexplicable, these articles on the singles have little sourced content other than the chart information, so could be merged to the Marit Larsen article. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 2 December 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 18:34, 6 December 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, Deadbeef 00:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Top 10 on national charts suggests notability, and I know Stylus Magazine in particular covered it some ([21][22][23]). No strong objections to merging into Under the Surface. hinnk (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As per the merge !vote, discussion of such can continue on an article talk page if desired. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Save Me (Marit Larsen song)[edit]

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

Single reference. Topic is not notable only few promotional mention in google search. -TheSawTooth (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article satisfies #1 on WP:NSONGS, "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." The somg has been on singles charts in 5 countries, so it meets the notability guidelines for a song. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marit Larsen. While I find the prods of her albums ill-judged, and the deletion nom of the artist as inexplicable, these articles on the singles have little sourced content other than the chart information, so could be merged to the Marit Larsen article. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 December 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 18:34, 6 December 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, Deadbeef 00:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Top 10 single on a national chart, coverage from Stylus Magazine: [24], [25], [26]. In particular, became Stylus's highest rated single: [27]. hinnk (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Marit Larsen. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Surface (song)[edit]

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

Single reference. Topic is not notable only few promotional mention in google search. -TheSawTooth (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marit Larsen. While I find the prods of her albums ill-judged, and the deletion nom of the artist as inexplicable, these articles on the singles have little sourced content other than the chart information, so could be merged to the Marit Larsen article. --Michig (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 2 December 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 18:35, 6 December 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, Deadbeef 00:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Under the Surface. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Ground (song)[edit]

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

Single reference. Topic is not notable only few promotional mention in google search. -TheSawTooth (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Marit Larsen. While I find the prods of her albums ill-judged, and the deletion nom of the artist inexplicable, these articles on the singles have little sourced content other than the chart information, so could be merged to the Marit Larsen article. --Michig (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent artist. While the deletion reason is insufficient, it is clear that this one does not pass WP:NSONGS in any form. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:02, 4 December 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 18:35, 6 December 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, Deadbeef 00:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Under the Surface. hinnk (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Under the Surface. Frmorrison (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kike Posada[edit]

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

Non notable radio presenter. Promotional article from a promotional editor. Posada presents on a local station. His award mentioned are not major. There's a lack of coverage about him in independent reliable sources. His magazine and production company are not notable. A look at sourcing at time of nomination:

1 dead link

2 short article about Colombians living in Miami giving each other awards. Not a major award, no depth of coverage about Posada: "Por Talento estuvo Kike Posada, presidente de la revista Boom y locutor de WRTO de Miami."

3 local interest coverage about a local radio show.

4 no depth of coverage about Posada , rough translation: "The ASCAP reported that the journalist Kike Posada, from Colombia, Miami, will be awarded the same day with Local Hero Music, being an essential pillar in promoting rock in Spanish."

5 small local award. no depth of coverage about Posada

6 repeat of 2

7 not billboard, dead link

8 just a photo, does not support claim

9 dead PR release.

Not good enough. A search found articles by him but not about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems to be a well-known personality in Miami, but that's pretty local. For WP:ENT, it seems to me to be borderline whether promoting rock in Spanish qualifies as "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Lack of sources beyond Miami makes it hard to argue that it does. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 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 18:45, 6 December 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, Deadbeef 00:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Duff's analysis of the sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) @ 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Neumann[edit]

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

Non notable. There's a lack of coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Of the purely local sourcing found in the article, none that can be reached have any depth of coverage about him. A look at sourcing at time of nomination:

1 dead link

2 dead link

3 not an independent reliable source

4 appears to be by him

5 short listing of a university exhibition on a blog.

Not good enough. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 2 December 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 18:52, 6 December 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, Deadbeef 00:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references flagged as dead links are nonetheless references in reliable sources. References do not need to be online to be valid. This is an artist who has had solo exhibitions in several different countries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 December 2014 (. UTC)

And which part of any of that make him notable? The dead links are local coverage that may or may not exist. The creator of this page, in this case using his Misty2011 account, has a history of faking verification, faking article titles, faking his identity, just straight out faking. A little bit of maybe local interest coverage does not make him notable. Solo exhibitions by themselves do not make him notable. Where were they, small towns, small places, Hochschuhl Christian community? Galeria Ikkon? None major exhibitions. None verified. None with any coverage. Yes he's been abroad and done show and done talks. But where? Here? "Capacity: 30 persons". Not the stuff of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references confirm the subject to be a working artist but do not indicate that he meets the WP:ARTIST criteria, nor are multiple searches finding anything better. AllyD (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Ref. 4 is the only non-local one, but this is a national newspaper, and I do not see any evidence that it is a blog section or smth. If they have chosen to publish a page about him (even if written by him), this suggests some notability. More sources could be good to have of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 23:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Percy (photographer)[edit]

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

Autobio for non notable photographer. There's a lack of coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is primary and non reliable sources. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, almost seems to be an ad. BenLinus1214 (talk) 03:56, 6 December 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 18:52, 6 December 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, Deadbeef 00:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vrac (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Orbital[edit]

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

Student newspaper. No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 22:07, 7 December 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, Deadbeef 00:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Founder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Student newspaper. No evidence of notability (indeed, largely unreferenced). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Royal Holloway, University of London where it is already mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 7 December 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, Deadbeef 00:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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