The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 00:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

San Trigo, Bastilion (fictional)[edit]

San Trigo, Bastilion (fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable Minecraft "city" with no evidence of reliable source coverage, and, in fact, little evidence of any coverage beyond Wikipedia mirrors. Everymorning talk 23:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no coverage from reliable sources, so this article fails notability requirements. I couldn't even find a YouTube video or fan website that proves that this Minecraft city actually exists. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No hits in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. This sort of comprehensive fan page belongs on Wikia, where issues of notability and verifiability are not issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by some chance this is kept the article should be moved because there is no other article titled San Trigo, Bastilion meaning that adding (fictional) is unnecessary excess.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - just something somebody created in Minecraft, not notable outside their house -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG et al., no basis for notability claimed. --Bejnar (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For all the previously mentioned reasons and because in my opinion it meets WP:A11 criteria.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:46, 27 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Zdorovetchi[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, yes she is an active artist but hardly gets any third party coverage. The article was created by a single purpose editor and still has no citations 5 years later LibStar (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep see Hailed as "hypnotizing," Ina Zdorovetchi has established a reputation as one of the leading harpists of her generation. The Boston Conservatory, Hailed as one of the most acclaimed harp virtuosos of her generation Wellesley College. Ina Zdorovetchi won the highest awarded prize at the 2009 International Harp Competition. Among other awards, she received the First Prize at the Bucharest International Harp Competition, the "Outstanding Achievement in Chamber Music" Award from the Fischoff National Competition, and the "Henry Cabot Award for extraordinary commitment of talent" from the Boston Symphony Orchestra. It looks like she meets #7 of WP:MUSICBIO as well as its spirit. --Bejnar (talk) 23:16, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Willis[edit]

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

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

Promotional article that fails WP:ANYBIO. While Mr. Willis has indeed appeared on television on behalf of his employer, he fails the required criteria: 1) "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times," and 2) "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to meet WP:BASIC given coverage in sources such as NPR, The Guardian, and the sources cited in the article already. Everymorning talk 15:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Being spokesperson does usually mean getting your picture in the paper. In this case, there are a few articles about him as spokesperson, but I'm not convinced that they provide the depth that would make this encyclopedic. What we know is that he was born in NOLA, and that he is the spokesperson for BP relating to the oil spill. As far as I can tell, that's all he's done. The articles listed here are basically "human interest" stories and give very little information about him. LaMona (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Bystander - I originally created the article. I am no longer sure the subject merits coverage here. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:49, 25 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audiovisual Communicators, Inc.[edit]

Audiovisual Communicators, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable subject; unsourced article; no reliable sources that could establish its notability. Theenjay36 (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Lenticel & Davey2010, do you have any thoughts on this matter? —theenjay36 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - I've done a quick search & found nothing. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete for now. Best ref that I got is that they were granted by the Philippine Congress with a franchise. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The stations owned by the subject may assert notability, especially RX 93.1, but the subject itself does not. 112.198.77.224 (talk) 15:13, 27 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. Mr.Z-man 00:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas F. Frichot[edit]

Nicolas F. Frichot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Frichot is not notable as a politician or political consultant, nor as an athlete. If the National Slam Poetry contest of Mauritius is a notable thing, this title might be a valid redirect, but otherwise, it jus needs to be deleted as shameless self-promotion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As evidenced by the creator's user talk page, he is on an obsessive quest to create an autobiographical article. This is just one more iteration of the same article that keeps failing WP:BIO. Admins may want to consider further action as this user doesn't appear to WP:GETTHEPOINT and is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --Drm310 (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Based on this action and this posting, can we make this a speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• G7 is only for cases where there are no other authors than the article creator. In addition, I think it is better to have this AfD run its course, so that any future re-creations can summarily be dealt with under G4. --Randykitty (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No WP:RS establish WP:GNG. This article may also have been a good candidate for db-spam. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a blatant piece of self promotion as I have ever seen. For policy infringements see those cited above by other voters. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 25 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. j⚛e decker^talk 01:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taeun[edit]

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

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

This is a TV variety show couple and is not encyclopedic content. All this information can be included in the main article for We Got Married.--TerryAlex (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I vote to delete the said page as it does indeed repeat information already available. Mikepellerin^talk 00:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, delete. The usual trivia so pervasive in K-entertainment. Not a notable topic, and that they're written up in the K-publicity machine is not surprise--but significant discussion in reliable sources, no. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above -Augustabreeze (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - We need a Taeun article? Really? Why do "couple shippers" get their own articles if they appear on WGM? Definitely not appropriate and just repetitive. Tibbydibby (talk) 01:24, 28 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. The one "delete" opinion apart from the nominator's is incomprehensible and therefore discounted.  Sandstein  08:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyu Media[edit]

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

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

The sources need checking if independent of the press releases - per spirit of WP:GNG / WP:RS . Churnalism should be avoided or excluded. If publishers being deemed RS is at odds with individual RS used in the article being independent, the wider consensus of GNG overrides WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of projects deeming them vetted. The first source I checked with duplicate detector indicates it is close paraphrasing of the PR, so is not independent. (I recognise churnalism is not PR, but for notability it should be considered) Widefox; talk 22:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Duplication detector analysis of checking press releases matches to the sources at Talk:Nyu Media#Restore : [1]
  • "Total match candidates found: 214
  • "Matching phrases found: 16" Widefox; talk 01:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Lastly, tangential to AfD, see Talk:Nyu Media#Timeline for my larger promo concern that we're dropping the ball here Widefox; talk 01:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The last AfD closed as "no consensus" less than a week ago. The close rationale was not a carte blanche to renominate as soon as the article expanded. To the point, this article topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, as demonstrated by its current sourcing:

Each of these sources has been vetted by the video games WikiProject at WP:VG/RS, and the individual articles discuss the actions of the company in detail. There is additional coverage for each of their actual games, which individually do not qualify for their own articles. The article that you noted for being similar to a press release (although still published at the discretion of a source with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking) has been covered by other outlets too. Happy to use their version if you'd prefer. You can find them and others with a simple search of the VGRS custom Google search linked from the page. You're welcome to deride this style of reporting with a pejorative such as "churnalism"—I'm not lauding it myself—but as long as the reporter is not affiliated with the subject and they are not recycling press releases wholesale (without editorial control), they are considered independent by WP standards. czar ⨹ 23:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has successfully been recreated with the sources, satisfying the closing remark "without prejudice towards renomination after improvements/expansion based on the sources unearthed in the AfD"
• Timing wise, this does feel accelerated
  • partly as we're past that considering it's been nommed for DYK (see Talk:Nyu Media#DYK nomination for reaction to that)
• Per WP:AFD you're meant to disclose being the creator
• I was hoping the discussion would move forward to evaluate the quality of the sources more objectively, use of "churnalism" I believe is the correct term for sources paraphrasing press releases. Whether they are deemed RS or not may be subjective, something that we can decide and reason here objectively or qualitatively, hopefully without pejorative terms, I agree.
  • Acknowledge the sources have been vetted by VG/RS as a RS publisher. Needn't mention it again, as I got that the first AfD. All good. That is only one of the three meanings of source at WP:RS, and my nom is about "source" as the "the piece of work itself" not publisher.
    • My duplication detector analysis Talk:Nyu Media#Restore drives a coach through the argument that the vetted sources are automatically 100% independent (and does question fact checking, yes) as the first source I checked is close paraphrasing, so I considered it prudent to gather further opinions addressing my nom rational, which I hope is an improvement on the more subjective assessment of sources which polarised the previous AfD.

Based on that, I can understand editors who wish to detail vetted WP:VG/RS publishers and be done, quite understandably, but that doesn't address the concerns of this nom about "piece of work itself" per WP:RS. Widefox; talk 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add. czar ⨹ 01:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This may not be the most appropriate forum to discuss the general question of how to determine when a news source crosses the line from sloppily using language directly from a press release to recycling a press release for "churnalistic" purposes. Rather, a discussion at WP:RSN may be in order. The duplication detector results presented here do suggest that one of the IndieGames.com articles has used a press release, but even if we exclude it the article is still left with 10 apparent RSes. Each of these would have to be knocked down in order to find that the topic fails GNG. I can agree that the sources need checking, but that's something that is supposed to occur WP:BEFORE nominating at AfD. -Thibbs (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. The logic is...by demonstrating that the first evaluated vetted VG/RS publisher article is not per se an independent RS article, the weighting put on them in the first AfD shifts, thus justifying the relisting. Cutting to the chase, a couple of the best sources is all that's needed to be singled out and checked, and I'm happy to withdraw. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for what is a RS article (for notability) can be challenged. Widefox; talk 11:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the first AfD I am not left with the impression that the outcome was based entirely on an understanding that the Indiegames source is independent. The discovery of facts that lead one to question whether a single source article (out of 11) is truly at arms length from the parent company is not justification for deletion of an entire article, especially when press releases are in fact citeable with caution per WP:SPS. AfD isn't intended to serve as an official fishing expedition into the integrity of the sources. AfD comes after such fishing has determined that all (or nearly all) of the sources are unuseable and further research has shown that no other RSes remain at large. I do support checking the sources against known press releases and excluding claims based on self-laudatory or opinion-heavy language originating in press releases. I am also willing to consider actual evidence against the existing sources if such is offered. -Thibbs (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(see below) Widefox; talk 01:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the sources found by Czar and Sattelizer. There's enough there to satisfy the GNG. Beyond that, its generally accepted that a renomination a week later is a little too soon. Not only hasty, but conceptually questionable as well; if there was no consensus to delete it a week ago, why would one think that a version that has only been improved upon, would fall on the side of delete? Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(see comment below) Widefox; talk 00:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (and source check) "different weight attributed to sources and analysis against WP:CORPDEPTH" was the closing remark. Regarding AfD timing, the Talk:Nyu Media#Timeline is the reason. Revisiting after new analysis (with the new sources): Yeah it's a single source, the first source checked, refuting that they are all per se independent RS per WP:ORGIND. All but 8-10 are routine product announcements per spirit of WP:CORPDEPTH (although wording says "simple statements") Widefox; talk 01:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rs, echo, reuse, recycle.. much eh? I don't want to be left in doubt when confirming sources, so better delete for now.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I entirely follow what you're trying to say. Is this in reference to the content closely resembling press releases? I agree that press releases themselves wouldn't count as third party coverage...but regurgitating/paraphrasing them, sloppy or not, is still third party coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - the exact same user re-nominating the same article less than a month after the previous AfD was closed is potentially disruptive. My original argument still stands. (I'm was busy in real life so I couldn't comment here sooner BTW.) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 22:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an inconsistency with this article - on one hand DYK nom as a new article, and on the other too close to prev AfD. This satisfies the closing remark (new sources), and DYK nom indicates finished editing. Summary Talk:Nyu Media#Timeline is why the timing is so, with new analysis of the sources. There's a cause and effect here. Widefox; talk 22:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what exactly at that link is supposed to justify renomination after a week's worth of time. It strikes me more of a case of WP:BLUDGEON or WP:STICK - more or less just trying again after you didn't get the result you wanted the first time. I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been speedy closed yet... Sergecross73 msg me 04:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Comment above. That argument could apply to the reaction to the recreated article, the action of recreating it, the G11, or recreated deleted paid editing resulting in a DYK nom. To single out one isn't productive, when they all (apart from the paid editing) appear in good faith. In this polarised situation, we have an opportunity to discuss based on the quality of the new sources.

As for me, I'm only here due to WP:COIN, and it is our choice to to accept sloppy sources or not for notability, and accept this timeline narrative or not. How does the label churnalism apply to us if we do? Widefox; talk 00:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the GNG or RS against your "churnalism", so your qualms about that are between you and the journalists, not a factor of this AFD. Czar has reworked the article, and it's not overly promotional, so I don't buy in to your COI arguments either. Multiple sources cover the topic in detail. That's all that matters. The rest is not handled in this venue. Sergecross73 msg me 04:37, 28 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) 17:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2017 albums[edit]

List of 2017 albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and albums that are scheduled or in production, even if reported or speculated in reliable sources, may simply not materialize. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON Film schedules are more easily kept, but television and music recording schedules definitely aren't settled two years away unless you love everything being 'TBA'. Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing here is sourced at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing confirmed, nothing sourced. A ludicrous subject for an article. --Michig (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too soon, fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 2015 is obviously fine, even 2016 (given how close we are to "the year before") might be okay but 2017 is just silly. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:04, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Marin[edit]

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

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

I'm not able to find anything on this artist that would count towards WP:GNG. Sam ^Sing! 22:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tried as well. Sadly, nothing was found. It appears that it may be primarily a promotional article for an up-and-coming musician. Alas, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Gaff (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 22:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 22:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot find anything either, and the article's references are not references at all—simply links to the websites of the various people/places he has allegedly studied under/played for. This not only fails GNG, it comprehensively fails the alternative criteria at MUSICBIO. The subject is only 23, i.e. at the very start of a possible career as a solo pianist, with no evidence of a substantial career yet.Voceditenore (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With all due respect to Mr Marin, I do not think that he is important enough for a Wikipedia page. I have searched relevant databases and can find no evidence that he has ever released an album with a reputable label or that he performs in significant recitals and concerts. Syek88 (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Change the Google search expression to "Ric Marin" pianist -wikipedia and there's almost nothing. Promotional article for not (yet) notable musician. --Stfg (talk) 11:32, 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 no consensus. This has already been relisted twice, and although there are 2 keep !votes and no delete !votes other than the nomination, the rationales are pretty weak relative to our guidelines so with only 2 I don't see a real consensus to keep or delete. Rlendog (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Millay[edit]

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

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

Doesn't pass GNG or ATHLETE. Did a look for some news sources to confirm the facts in the article and couldn't find anything. Wizardman 15:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with the standards for GNG & ATHLETE. If you searched online for facts, I am certain you found very little. The source I noted in the reference section is a paper from 1979. If you would like a scanned copy of the article, I would be happy to email it to you or post it to wiki (if I can remember how). Silmalel 21:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This depends entirely on whether Wikipedia has a place for baseball trivia. As a player he was utterly unremarkable. But it's not about the player, it's about the rarity of the event. I found it very enjoyable. It would be a great DYK. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The real question is not about baseball trivia, but whether Joe Millay feats in three sports in the same year (a 300 in bowling, an ace in golf, pitching a no-hit, no-run game for a professional baseball team) have received significant coverage. In electronic sources the answer is "not so much"; however, it seems likely that print sources, were they to be investigated, might provide that significant coverage. It is possible to think of dismissing this article under WP:1EVENT, but this is really three events, and we don't have the problem of Joe Millay being a living person. All told, I would keep the article for reference development. --Bejnar (talk) 21:38, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 01:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Mansaray[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 23:09, 20 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) 14:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Coverage locally and nationally already. There will likely be an with in a few months to a year (yeah yeah... CRYSTAL and stuff) so please don't SALT.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 26 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. Deletion unopposed.  Sandstein  08:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South India's 75 Apostles of Bhakti[edit]

South India's 75 Apostles of Bhakti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

"75 Apostles of Bhakti" seems to be a neologism by a wiki editor. Can not trace any RS pre-2005 (creation of article) using the term. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Borderline case of notability for WP:NEO. No great harm in deleting it because the subject is covered in individual pages for Alwar etc. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 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 delete. j⚛e decker^talk 01:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Frisko[edit]

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

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

Single-sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a local television news anchor — and even that one source isn't covering him in the context of a substantive career accomplishment, but merely for having been successful in a social media challenge which forced a coworker to get a tattoo of his face. That's not something that gets a person over WP:JOURNALIST by itself, and neither is anything else here — but the article isn't properly sourced enough to claim WP:GNG as an alternative, either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently he's got the best hair in Halifax. So you know, there's that. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete local news anchor with no widespread significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 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. Mr.Z-man 00:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Love[edit]

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

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

This article is ridiculous. We wouldn't have articles on any other countries' presidents' personal aides, security guards, cleaners, or kitchen assistants, or other people in non-political, low-level, menial positions. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for White House fancruft. If someone wants to write articles on every person working in the White House, they should start a Wikia project instead. The guy's job was basically to give Obama his snacks and arrange his meals and so forth. You don't get to have a biographical article in an encyclopedia based on that. Bjerrebæk (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't feel TOO strongly about this, but if you are going to scrub out this page, you should go through the Body man page and scrub out several others, if not all of them. Love is certainly more notable than several others that have pages. Love was mentioned a lot on media during his time with Obama - much more than "security guards, cleaners, or kitchen assistants", none of which, to my knowledge, had even a fraction of Love's media presence.

Notability is subjective but he's reasonably notable. I would not have recognized any of the names of the three people who have served as Secretary of Commerce in the Obama administration but I would have recognized Love's name, and I doubt I'm alone. (Admittedly, I cherry picked the only cabinet position that's true of, but the point stands.)

I don't see the lack of pages on David Cameron's Guy Friday as particularly relevant - all things American have more detail on wikipedia; it's the nature of the medium.Atarr (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those listed on body man have become notable for other things after they were personal assistants. The only thing Reggie Love has done afterwards is going to university, which is fine, but which doesn't merit a biographical article in an encyclopedia. It all boils down to his experience as a valet/personal servant and his going to university afterwards. It is indeed possible that there are other articles that should be deleted (and I will give the issue due consideration when we are done with this one), although "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to keep an article. The same notability standards apply to American topics as to topics related to any other country; I suspect an article on a personal assistant to the German President, or the Danish Prime Minister, whose job was to arrange his employer's meals and hand them their snacks, would be deleted very quickly. Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's his history before becoming Obama's body man (2-sport athlete at Duke and multiple tryouts with NFL teams) and the basketball tie-in (regular pickup partner of Obama's) that earned him all the press in the first place. It was just a fun story that a lot of the press ran with.

Again, it really seems like notability is pretty subjective if you don't try to measure it. One obvious measure is google hits; "Reggie Love" generates almost 150,000 with no notable crossover from any other Reggie Loves. Going down the list of the other "Body Men" with articles, most of them are nowhere near that. The only one that surpassed Love without lots of obvious false positives was Huma Abedin, who (much like Love) is known for various tangential connections to more than one big story. (Although the wiki is mercifully silent on this subject, Love was also the subject of some of the more over-the-top theories about Obama in some parts of the blogosphere.) Atarr (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG through multiple examples of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Whether a subject "deserves" such coverage is irrelevant; we don't make that subjective determination, the reliable sources do. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The multiple reliable sources clearly establish notability for Mr. Love. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:14, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Keyes[edit]

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

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

The article has been cleaned up from its heavily WP:PROMO history that came mostly from a single SPA, but the subject still isn't notable independent of the organizations he jumps between. Lagrange613 21:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per WP:GNG, because "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". He's written for a stellar list of publications, has been widely covered, and has got results. Former versions of the article had a good of praise for his work, which was added and then removed by the same SPA. I agree that we don't need the praise just to show that he's notable. Can't we just have an article about his activities? – Margin1522 (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Shame was used as an WP:advert but still clearly notable. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:14, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FanPro[edit]

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

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

I don't think this is a notable website (or project). It sounds like it was the original name for the company Fantasy Productions which held the BattleTech license. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Looks like pure promotionalism to me. Quis separabit? 20:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per everyone above - Clearly promo. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources to indicate notability, and the article is borderline promotional. --Biblioworm 04:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – So far hits on Google are all to non-RS sources. Needs to show that it has been noticed somewhere except blogs and anime fan sites. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:20, 27 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. Mr.Z-man 00:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open Status[edit]

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

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

Non-notable software. No reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no RS coverage, and article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of notability, zero sources, and a Google search turned up nothing. --Biblioworm 04:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete - can't find enough sources to justify WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:14, 27 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 under A9. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Music (album)[edit]

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

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

DePRODed by an IP user. Concern was: This is actually a potential CSD-A9 because the artist's article is still at draft stage (does not exist in mainspace), has not yet been reviewed at AfC, and might not even pass WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This looks like it could be an A9 to me too. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This individual has been trying to get into Wikipedia for a while; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Finest. ... discospinster _talk 20:35, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heo Yujeong[edit]

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

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue.Concern was: Not independantly notable outside the band. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Heo Yujeong currently has no notability outside the band. --Random86 (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)][reply]

• Delete. No notability outside band. Band itself may not even be notable. Biography clearly copied from a PR release. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:32, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OneWorld Foundation[edit]

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

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

promotional article with dubious notability � DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Also promotional; I removed one paragraph which was a copyright violation. BethNaught (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, subject doesn't meet the Wikipedia's standard of inclusion at this time and qualifies for deletion. Yes, it reads WP:PROMO as well. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:27, 26 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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Tavix |  Talk  07:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Olson[edit]

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

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

This is a disambiguation page for four non-notable Brett Olsons. None of the disambiguated subjects actually has an article, or even a redirect, so I'm not sure what purpose this serves. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 17:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominatorT.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 16:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Another bizarre page creation from a now-indeffed editor with a long history of creating hundreds of flawed disambiguation and redirect pages, to get as far up the edit count ladder as possible. Since there's no actual target page involved, It's certainly eligible for a A3 or G8 speedy. Ravenswing 17:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the entries seem to satisfy WP:DABMENTION Siuenti (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - A user moved the page from Brett Olson (disambiguation) to Brett Olson. To avoid confusion, I changed the name to the latter in the header for this discussion. The page remains nominated for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As Siuenti says quadruple WP:DABMENTION seems good grounds to keep. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the standard way we handle disam between multiple people mentioned in articles. I cannot think of any other way to guide people to appropriate content given the limitations of REDIRECT. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I misunderstood the guidelines for disambiguation pages. This now seems worth keeping to me. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: helps the reader find which of the 4 they are looking for, valid dab page. PamD 15:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep All meet MOS:DABMENTION and are WP:USEFUL. I added two, but actually there are several others which would meet MOS:DABMENTION. There are target pages Ravenswing, they are articles which mention the person rather than a full article on them, but that's still useful to a reader who has typed it in. Tchaliburton, your comment indicates a withdrawal of nomination, but unless Ravenswing strikethrough his/her comment, the discussion will probably continue for a while, and I don't think it needs to. What do you think, Ravenswing?Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete none of the subjects come close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Johnpacklambert, notability issn't what we're looking at. MOS:DABMENTION's example is of a page very like this:

==== Items appearing within other articles ====

If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink. For example:

Maggie Anderson may also refer to: Maggie Anderson, actress in Corpus Callosum Maggie Anderson, a character in Brigadoon

Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 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. Wifione ^Message 19:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generic elevator companies[edit]

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

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

I'm not sure of the merits of this kind of business list article. Also , the one inline spamlink in the lead could infer that the entire exercise is for the benefit of that company. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Possible artspam. Definitely a list of apparently non-notable companies. There is currently one that is blue linked (Marshall Elevator which is possibly notable but definitely needs looking at reference-wise). There were three, but I delinked a disam page, and removed a link to a solar cell manufacturer (which was a redirect to a mention in another article anyway). There is one more link in the list that's blue, but that goes to an entry at Elevatorpedia (no kidding). Peridon (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTDIR Toohool (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article doesn't provide much encyclopedic content, and is mostly a very long list of various elevator companies that lack articles in Wikipedia. No prejudice against creating a list article of notable elevator companies per Category:Elevator manufacturers. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• N.b. See the new List of elevator manufacturers. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 27 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. WP:A10. Not only does this exact material remain in Elizabeth Taylor, but the content was copied and pasted from there without any attribution and in a manner that broke the defined references. The new editor responsible should read WP:SPLIT and is urged to discuss such attempts first on the article's talk page rather than attempting them unilaterally. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marriages, romances, and children of Elizabeth Taylor[edit]

Marriages, romances, and children of Elizabeth Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a copy-paste of a section from Taylor's article. There is no reason for the information to be in Wikipedia twice (and especially identically) and it should, I believe, stay in the original article instead of getting moved to a new one, because the information available is not as much as needed for a stand-alone article. The Theosophist (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 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. This should be at DRV. AFD cannot review a G4 Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Duncan (martial arts)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Duncan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/Ron_Duncan

Recreated, deleted, needs second article debate as page was userfied, moved to mainspace and deleted CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per a suggestion by Thincat, I am recreating an article to put it on AFD so that it may be considered for main space Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 1. The previous article was deleted with one keep vote and two weak deletes (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Duncan). A current version of the article for mainspace is available here User:CrazyAces489/Ron_Duncan or in the history of Ronald Duncan. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't really see the point of this exercise. The new article could simply be posted under the title, but I would advise revising it a bit first as it looks rather promotional in wording (yes, things can be promo even though the subject is deceased). I've not checked the references, and know very little about martial arts. The page under this title doesn't need a second debate here when there is nothing in the page to debate. The new draft is not eligible for debate here as this is Articles for Deletion, not Miscellany for Deletion. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment can someone undelete this article and talk page so that people can see the article to make an assessment. CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not do that, the article had multiple contributors, but the article there was a cut and paste from somewhere causing a copyright issue. And the correct venue for reviewing a deleted article is DRV. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  CommentPlease do not accuse me of putting together a cut and paste job unless you can find the alleged source of it. There is no way that occurred as the article. 13:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  You cut and paste the whole article, the original article in your userspace has more editors than just you. Those users as per the link given licensed the text requiring attribution, that's where the problem arises. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Creating User:CrazyAces489/Shiina2 has the same problem the history and attribution for the other contributors is all lost. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close - Wrong Venue if CrazyAces489 wishes to challenge the G4 deletion of the article, then it needs to go to DRV not AFD. The article was deleted as a G4 deletion, since the last AFD deleted it and the DRV endorsed the outcome, CrazyAces489 decided not to bother with the consensus of either and just cherry picked one comment from the DRV regarding recreate and AFD. He did then proceeded to do the first part, recreating this at the new title a month or so ago, but didn't do the second part until it was pointed out to him. An admin must have noticed and G4 deleted it yesterday (20 Dec) at which point CrazyAces created a blank page to AFD. The version previously userfied should be bought up to scratch (Remove all the cites to trivial mentions, blogs, vanity press and other unacceptable sources) then bought back to DRV. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThe AFD deleted it a while ago with what I saw to be a weak majority. The DRV put forth a suggestion to recreate the article and go through the DRV process. I would ask 86, that you use a better tone, as you are cominig off very rude to me. I am only trying to create good articles of individuals within the martial arts community. Am I a great at this? No, but I am learning this as the process goes along. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main issue for the DRV decline is the overwhelming number of questionable sources which makes the article untenable - hard to find notability in a sea of s... Two further creations of CrazyAces489 are currently up in AfD debate Kiyoshi Shiina and Jerome Mackey with essentially the same problem. Instead of addressing or understanding the issue we see an attempt to end run.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's very rude to ignore community consensus. Your statements are ultimately disingenuous, DRV is not and I'm sure you full well know a request for ideas where you get to decide which of them to implement. And even then as is factually quite clear you didn't follow even that "suggestion" since you restored it over a month ago without bothering to relist. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86, I am doing so now. If you would like to help me I am fine with it. I am discovering more of wikipedia as I edit. I am no wiki genius. Please let me refer you to WP:NICE and Wikipedia:Harassment. I see your edit history since November 28 is on my userpages of articles I have tried to fix as well as places I edit. I do wonder where your interest in my artciles come from. Especially new articles like Latoya Hanson Also where is the source of the copyright issue. I see you ignored my questioning of your accusation. [2] CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing so now, over a month later, when it's pointed out to you that you've ignore the DRV consensus, you'll have to excuse my cynicism. Reviewing an editors contributions is quite reasonable, not sure why you'd think differently, indeed you seem to have done exactly the same to me here. The user page of the article you refer to is the userfied version of this one, where I've done the terribly harassing thing of improve the citations (and have gradually been doing so since it since october). In reality I saw that article at DRV and thought I'd try an help out a little on the cites on the userfied copy. Latoya Hanson suffers the same issue your other articles do, cites to trivial mentions and poor citation style. Now I could have just AFDd it, or changed it to a redirect, but instead I noted the notability issue and improved the citation style, if you feel harassed by such actions then I guess you have a very different idea to me about what harassment is. I could of course have seen the other articles at AFD and gone and !voted delete, again how terribly harassing of me not to have done so. You seem to be trying to construct a case of harassment out of me pointing out your lack of respect for the consensus reached at DRV, this seems a fairly transparent attempt to fling mud. I linked the relevant details re the copyright issue when stated above, WP:CWW contributions to wikipedia are subject to a license which requires attribution, copying and pasting a whole article loses that attribution so is in breach of the license. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86, You stated that I am copy and pasting. Again, I am asking you to please show me direct links of where the copy and pasting is occurring. From what website or websites. If you vote to delete an article I wrote. I don't care. That is your opinion and that is fine. The point of a userfied article though is for the user to use. If you think it's poor citations. That is your opinion. I don't go onto your userfied articles at all. A large majority of your edits since october 18 have been into places I have been to or things I have authored. This is borderline WP:HOUND. I ask that you stop following me around. I don't know who you are and find this behavior and your general tone to me annoying. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close - Wrong Venue This is a pointless effort and not sure why it was attempted. CrazyAces489 is certainly aware of the DRV process having used it before. The entry should be deleted until resolved. Frankly the original AfD was long enough before that a repost would most likely be AfD rather than PROD'd.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rehse, What is the best process. I read in one of the DRV's that going through there wasn't the best venue. I saw repeated claims to restart the article to go through the AFD process. So which is the best way after an article has been recommended for deletion? AFD or DRV? CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on your talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 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. Michig (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Marcellin[edit]

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

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

Nothing to indicate this is a notable individual Jac16888 ^Talk 11:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Administrator at a secondary school. No significant coverage in independent sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He's a headteacher. Nothing else shown in the way of notability. Peridon (talk) 19:16, 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. Michig (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyug (2014)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. A candidate for speedy, but there's no suitable csd tag. I think, A9 should be extended in context of books. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NBOOK. A first publication by a non notable author. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Not seeing any reviews in WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:12, 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 speedy delete as vandalism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AX. ZZ.ZA- a Zz[edit]

AX. ZZ.ZA- a Zz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Redirect to ownself. 333-blue 09:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy delete I've no idea why my speedy nomination was removed. This could be speedied under several criteria: G2 (being charitable) as a test page, G6 (routine maintenance) or A3 (no content.) There is no need for us to spend time in an AFD when this is obviously not notable. Valenciano (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Page already deleted as vandalism. Speedy close please.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James N. Farmer[edit]

James N. Farmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This person is not notable enough, and this page looks like blatant self promotion. Paleolithicus (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not self promotion, I didn't create the page, but I will argue that I am relatively notable :) - here's a couple of recent articles in mainstream media featuring me!≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.188.56.140 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/smallbiz-tech/win-work-from-freelance-sites-20140804-3d46d.html

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/44263-are-you-being-ripped-off-on-website-development.html

• Note – This was a malformed AfD nomination that was never transcluded to the AfD log page. As such, its time for discussion begins as of the time of this post. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Given the reliable third-party sources quoted in the article I believe this clearly passes the WP:N test. Does it require a re-write? Absolutely. But a re-write doesn't automatically imply a necessity for deletion. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing coverage. It does look like self promotion. I don't think Perry Middlemiss's "third-party sources" would count as reliable sources. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Most of the sources are 6 to 10 years old and most of them are dead. The two recent links that the subject himself provided are reliable, mainstream sources that seem to indicate that he's moved on to the web development outsourcing business. That's confirmed by this, which is far from a reliable source and pretty hostile, but does suggest far-flung operations. Whether this kind of business rates an article, I doubt it. The role as founder of edublogs.org does – the world's largest network of education webblogs is significant. The problem is lack of reliable recent sources. I would trim this article down to a stub. One sentence on "founded edublogs.org", to the extent that it can be sourced from the 2006 article, and one sentence on the current web development business. If there are more reliable sources (an interview? I couldn't find one) that can indicate a continuing major role at "edublogs.org" that would help the article survive. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A few industry articles does not notability make, IMO. These are standard articles about business practices, and both of the new ones are from websites, not mainstream news sources. Nothing tells me that this person stands out among the thousands of IT business people running small businesses. LaMona (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the recent articles was the website of The Sydney Morning Herald. The 2006 article was from The Australian, which I believe is Australia's largest national newspaper. I think those two are enough for the two-sentence article that I suggested. He's linked in Edublog and The Edublog Awards, so if we delete this article those will become red links, inviting someone to create it again. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources would those be? - they don't seem to be in the article at the moment. Non-viable articles can easily be protected by admins from every being created, so that's not a reason to keep the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 2006 cite is the first footnote. Until yesterday it was a bot-generated link to 404 page archive, but I fixed it and now it displays an archived article from The Australian. The other one is the article that the subject himself mentioned above. I haven't been at this very long, so I'm still going on the policies in (WP:BEFORE), that editing should be considered first and that sources don't need to appear in the article. I mentioned the links in the other articles as evidence that someone considered him notable. If we decide that he isn't, it would seem that simply editing out the brackets in those articles would be less drastic than protecting the title. Wouldn't that leave us with red links to an article that can't be created? Anyway, has anyone else visited the edublogs.org website or read the Edublog and The Edublog Awards articles? After having done that, is he still not notable? – Margin1522 (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Edublog link is not an excuse to keep this article. Part of the cleanup should be to remove links that are unlinked. There does seem to be a practice of creating links in order to justify separate articles, but this is not a "best practice." LaMona (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources provide in-depth coverage of this person, and most don't appear to be RS anyway. This is self promotion at best and a poorly referenced BLP of a non-notable person at worst, and should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, there's a lot of junk sources in there, but some of them, such as the article in The Australian which has Farmer as it's central topic, are above the level of blogs or industry pap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:44, 27 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. The topic of the article is almost certainly notable. Coverage of specific artists within the article is outside the scope of AFD. Mr.Z-man 04:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic in art[edit]

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

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

Article mainly seems to be a WP:COATRACK for an artist with dubious notability. Needs completely rewriting at the very least. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Per "own work" uploads at Commons (with OTRS tickets) of the images removed from this article as spam, webmeister1 is Tyler Turkle, and the version of this article before he began editing it made no mention of him. Searching for the term "Tyler Turkle plastometry" reveals exactly one RS connection of the term with his name that is not directly tracable to this article, from the "Sonoma County Gazette", which is hardly a major source for art criticism (the article is mainly about his day job, not his art). The version before his edits was also extremely short and unsourced, and not even remotely an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Revent^talk 17:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as hoax, ban the Wikipedian globally as chronic hoax-producer. JSTOR shows 0 mentions. Google Scholar shows only a single self-made reference inserted into World-Cat. I think we, and not only us, have been conned, starting in 2008. I suggest that impeccable art historian sourcing be consulted. The artist is not mentioned by the Metropolitan Museum's art history series encyclopedic review addressing the subject of Plastic in Arts: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mome/hd_mome.htm . --Mareklug ^talk 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC) PS. http://www.moma.org/search?query=Tyler+Turkle I suggest searching for "Tyler Turtle" on any art museum or art history encyclopedia page, and finding anything but absence of results. --Mareklug ^talk 17:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having been started in 2002, this is one of the earliest articles on Wikipedia. A brief search confirms that the topic is notable as examples of sources include:

1. Organic Mass Spectrometry in Art and Archaeology
2. The Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art
3. Plastics in Art

If some particular artist has hijacked the article then, per WP:BABY, this is not a reason to delete the whole page as ordinary editing per our editing policy will suffice. Andrew D. (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rolled back to the state before the 1st edit by Mr. Turkle. Nothing that follows appears trustable or relevant or well-sourced. I suggest someone with interest in the subject area take the above-provided Metropolitan Museum overview of plastics in arts link, and the reference sources mentioned there, to expand this stub into a decent wikipedia analogue, in this space. --Mareklug ^talk 22:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the topic of using plastic in artwork is an obvious art topic. If these two artists should be mentioned in the article is a different subject that could be taken up on the talk page. -- GreenC 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just found Plastic arts; Not sure if these are duplicates of each other or not. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Plastic" in that article is being used in a different sense, like plasticity. -- GreenC 14:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has this deletion already been decided without discussion, because Mareklug has already removed much of the page...I did not even have the opportunity to reedit. I thought that this was to be open for discussion. Regardless, much to do has come about because of a misunderstanding and an editing error on my part. I have explained in detail in the request for deletion of Tyler Turkle above - please take the time to review it. Webmeister1 is not Tyler Turkle contrary to what one editor has jumped to conclusions about. This appears to be an outright global harassment over a misunderstanding.

Coatrack

There was mention that the Plastic in Art page that I (Webmeister1) edited was a “Coatrack”. Until this day I did not know what “Coatrack” was, but I do now. I understand now that the way I edited could be construed as that. I will work to provide a better product in the future. Thank you for understanding that not all Wikipedia Editors can be as proficient as you, we are learning. I wish to work with you in amicably working toward restoring the pages that have been so unjustly removed.

Plastic in art is certainly an art topic in many forms and should not be deleted. I will work to place the art that Tyler Turkle has done onto this page in cooperation within Wikipedia guidelines. Mr. Turkle’s work with plastic is unique. It is a painstaking many hours process of the flowing of multiple layers of plastic. It is this style of art that makes his technique most unique. American Contemporary Artists must be recognized. Please do not allow this page or other Contemporary American Artists pages to be removed due to someones misinterpretation of an editing error.

Thank you for this consideration…Webmeister1 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion/exclusion of Tyler Turkel should be handled on the talk page. Start an RfC, get consensus. If there is concern about COI make a case at the COI noticeboard using evidence. Meanwhile, please don't damage Wikipedia by deleting articles. -- GreenC 14:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All of the information on the Plastic in Art page related to Tyler Turkle and his work with plastic was removed before any consensus was made and it was done in knee jerk fashion all due to a misunderstanding of an editing error I made in Wiki Commons as I mentioned above. This is not keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and I do feel that the Plastic in Art page must be undeleted until talk and discussion about what to do is completed. Webmeister1 (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Plastic in art page has not been deleted. The page is still there. It is a blue link, not a red link. The purpose of this discussion is to decide if it should remain a blue link, or become a red link. That's it. Any internal content issues, such as the removal of Tyler Turkle from the article, has nothing to do with this AfD. Please take that discussion up on the talk page of the article. Use Wikipedia's dispute resolution tools such as WP:RFC. AfD is not the correct procedure for resolving a dispute over content issues. -- GreenC 13:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I fail to see the importance of the topic. Yes, plastic is used in art. Obviously its use coincides with the twentieth century. Does any source claim a significance for this? A redirect to New materials in 20th-century art would be called for unless sources can be found attributing importance this. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see the Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art for a good example of an encyclopedic article on the topic. See also the Metropolitan Museum of Art for an example of institutional interest. Andrew D. (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right, those are two good sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable topic, however it needs some sources such as the ones linked by Andrew D. Frmorrison (talk) 15:34, 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Robinson[edit]

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

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

All external links listed are primary sources (IMDb doesn't influence notability), article fails to provide any true coverage. MaranoFan (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Granted the article is in a sad state but the individual gets some significant press like this NY Times article [3], or this [4] and this [5]. Suggest tagging for cleanup etc... rather than delete.Vrac (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note:#2 and #3 are definitely unreliable. NY Times doesn't directly talk about the person and the article still fails to provide sufficient coverage for inclusion. MaranoFan (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same NY Times article? The article in the link I posted is all about her and her choreography, it has biographical information, her name is mentioned 11 times, she is quoted several times, etc... Here is the link again: [6] Vrac (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Major choreographer for film and television. This edit shows that someone removed the article content as unreferenced instead of asking for citations. AfD is for nominating articles that shouldn't exist, not underwritten (well, slashed) articles on notable subjects. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quickly found & added refs; could another editor please format using the citation templates? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources found demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 27 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. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathawat[edit]

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

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

Article has been unreferenced for nearly 10 years. While this seems to be a popular Indian surname, there is no evidence of notability beyond that and no evidence that any of the information presented in the article is true. At this point, it may well be a hoax. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It isn't a hoax. See for example this. It's one of 71 sub-clans of Kachwaha - as such I admit to having no idea whether that makes it notable - probably not I would say unless significant coverage is found stating why it's notable. A redirect to the parent clan may be worth considering. --Michig (talk) 13:30, 27 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beat the Pack[edit]

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

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

Non-notable (and short run) TV game show. I can find a handful of references, but they're all either not independent or not reliable. It's been tagged as unreferenced for nearly two years. ColinFine (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not have independent sources, and we can not have articles on every TV program.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 27 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Maleki[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO Harsh (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sourcing tools aren't forthcoming with evidence of notability, let alone 3rd-party references to substantiate the information presented in this article. Nice picture, though. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't find sources and the article doesn't have them, so notability hasn't been demonstrated. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 27 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 State Library of Ohio. A bit early, but it was redirected by the author and consensus seems to be heading that way. Anyone (not just admins) may revert this close if deemed inappropriate. (non-admin closure) ansh666 20:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Libraries Share: MORE[edit]

Ohio Libraries Share: MORE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. The program could be mentioned on the individual library pages but it doesn't merit its own entry. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and place all bluelinked articles into a category if there are enough articles for that. No evidence that the service itself is actually notable. — kikichugirl ^? 04:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect make the article redirect and move the contents to Ohio#Libraries. Possibly mention in individual library pages. AadaamS (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to State Library of Ohio. which mentions it, along with the other Ohio networking schemes, some of which are in fact notable. I don't see the usefulness of a category. Most of this libraries will never be suitable for articles, and what we really need is a list page, "Libraries in Ohio" Whether or not they belong to this network is not the most important thing about them sufficiently to make a category helpful. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This has now been done by the author. Should this debate be closed now? ekips39 03:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to State Library of Ohio. Normally Afds are closed before the result is implemented. --Bejnar (talk) 23:20, 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 keep. Wifione ^Message 03:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nichola Goddard[edit]

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

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

So, let me start this AfD by saying I was on the fence about submitting it because I think the notability of this subject is probably close to borderline, and I know some people might get riled up by a deletion. That said, looking at this article I can't see how the subject passes WP:SOLDIER or WP:BLP1E. There may be a WP:GNG argument for keep, but I'm submitting this AfD to test that. Additionally, the existence of this article would probably fall afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. That she has a biography published means that is ample material to create an article from. Having songs written about her and a school and a ship named after her means that people will have a reason to look up her name for years to come, and the article will not be orphaned. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A country's first female combatant killed in action is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have no doubt that the nominator Is acting in well-informed good faith. However, I believe that having an article about the first female soldier killed in combat from an important country like Canada is something that an encyclopedia of almost 4.7 miillion articles ought to have. I agree with Hawkeye7 that if even marginally notable things are named after her, then it is appropriate to have a biography of her. There can be no doubt that reliable sources are available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:42, 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. Original contributor blanked BLP Wifione ^Message 03:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Garza[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable person. His role in Mockingjay seems to be a minor one. --Jakob (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Could not find coverage in reliable sources. Could be speedy delete for original research in a blp. Vrac (talk) 21:23, 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White savior narrative in film[edit]

White savior narrative in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Potentially biased source material and conclusions based on opinion rather than fact. If the article was highlighting that some believe there is a "white savior narrative" then deletion would not be needed; however, assertions made about specific films are all opinions and not objective review of the films. To quote the entry for "12 Years a Slave": "While 12 Years a Slave focused mainly on Northup's resilience, and a Canadian did in reality rescue Northup, the film was identified as the latest cinematic representation of slavery that depicted a white savior." This appears agenda driven; disregarding facts of the film and history in order to claim that the film somehow fits this idea. Furthermore the use of potentially biased online articles as the major source of support does not lend to objectivity. Quoting the page itself: "David Sirota at Salon.com said, 'These story lines insinuate that people of color have no ability to rescue themselves.' This again is an opinion and not a fact, yet it is asserted as fact in the Wiki article. What a person takes away from a piece of art is subjective not objective. The Wiki article attempts to use the subjective interpretation of flims as support for an objective claim. If the article was used to inform the reader that there are people who believe there is a white savior narrative and what those beliefs entail then the article would be objective. However, the article instead attempts to replace objectivity with the subjective opinions and feelings of others in an attempt to support a claims about films that can and have been disputed. Talk pages have been used. When criticism is levied against source material the source material is used to confirm the source material. FauXnetiX (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC) — FauXnetiX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As an addition it should be noted that the definition of this trope seems to be any "white" (which can mean anything as indicated by the talk page) hero that assists anyone who isn't "white" makes this position untenable. As for clean up, attempts have been made, but edits are constantly reverted and discussion is avoided on the talk page. Clean up isn't possible when criticism is ignored and opinion is asserted as fact. FauXnetiX (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a topic that meets WP:GNG. Just Googling for "white savior" film shows numerous results in Google Books and Google Scholar. This is a sociological topic. The book Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness is a collaboration between a sociologist and a film critic. The book mentioned in the "Further reading" section, The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption, is a highly detailed book by a sociologist about the subject. Even if one disagrees with the topic, there is no reason presented to delete it. Discussion about the wording of the topic should be had on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding this edit, concerns on the talk page led to revising the first paragraph of the article to be based on the Temple University sociologist's assessment as well as the film critic/sociologist's assessment. Journalistic observations were relegated to the second paragraph. In addition, for the list of films, the Hughey book lists nearly all of these as well. I can add references for these films to warrant their listing further. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources show this is a notable topic, whatever one's opinion of it. Borock (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to see this page deleted. The way the page is written right now, it makes this trope so broad it ceases to be much. For instance, when I questioned whether or not Avatar really qualified to be on the list of films featuring the trope, as the trope is about race of the savior and those saved, I was told that the aliens may not be people of color literally, but symbolically they were. I also pointed out that actor Keanu Reeves is half Chinese and his race never made explicit in The Matrix. This means that the assertion that he is a white savior is questionable and based on assumption. When basically the race of the "white" savior can include half Asians, and the victims can be symbolic people of colors represented by blue aliens or gross prawn ones, then I have to question if there is a line at all for what couldn't qualify assuming it has someone save a bunch of people. Captain Stack (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The case needs to be made that the topic is not notable for Wikipedia, but it passes the general notability guidelines in having plenty of coverage, as I highlighted above. For Avatar, there are especially numerous results just for that particular film in Google Books and Google Scholar. The results highlight that none of the oppressed Na'vi, similar to indigenous peoples, can save themselves, it takes a white savior. As for The Matrix, Keanu Reeves passes as white. That is why his characters in The Matrix and Hardball are sociologically identified as white saviors. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a ton of publications that publish celebrity gossip, but that doesn't make it notable or encyclopedic. I'm glad you think Keanu Reeves "passes as white" but it doesn't matter what OTHER people think his race is. He is half Chinese, and is biologically as Chinese as he is white. What he personally prefers to identify as is his decision and not yours. Furthermore, it's important that the CHARACTER'S race is not defined and cannot and should not be assumed. The reason this is relevant is because the trope must be well enough defined to qualify as encyclopedic. If the races can be symbolic or assumed then calling it a "white savior narrative" isn't accurate at all. Furthermore, I get that there are articles about this, but quantity of articles isn't enough in itself. I can find articles that say whatever I want, and I can publish whatever I want on the internet. It won't make it true. Captain Stack (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  He passes as white in the popular perspective. The detail about his ancestry comes as a surprise to many people. This says, "To most moviegoers, he is an average white guy. He is an archetypal dude. He can be easily accepted as white." It is too narrow to think about needing to define a film character as that of a particular race. Society already defines that for itself, and it reveals this particular trend. Look past the news articles, which are not in depth, and read the sociologists' descriptions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are multiple books about this topic including Screen Saviors: Hollywood Fictions of Whiteness; Race, Philosophy, and Film; The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption. They specifically give The Matrix as an example. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic, well known trope in the sociology of film. See, for example, Turner, Graeme Film as Social Practice Routledge 4th Ed. 2006; Tudor, Andrew Image and Influence: Studies in the Sociology of Film Allen & Unwin 1974. WP does not delete just because some clean-up is needed. P.S.: BTW, Chinese is an ethnicity, not a race. Meclee (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced article on well known trope. Some paragraph breaks wouldn't go amiss though. Also the list portion could probably be replaced by prose which picks a few strong examples rather than it's current scattershot approach. Artw (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rebalance the structure of the article. Currently, we have only a rather long lead section, followed immediately by a list of films. It would be better to have a lead of just one paragraph, followed by one or more sections on discussions of the trope (including its limits and/or its relationship to related tropes) in reliable sources, with the list then following on. Doing this would probably make clearer why certain cases (for instance, Keanu Reeves in The Matrix) are regarded as classic examples of the trope while not conforming with some strict constructions of the terms involved in the usual verbal definition. PWilkinson (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Topic is clearly notable. The sources listed here and in the articles attest to that. If there are specific issues that need to be addressed, they can take place on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone said "Chinese is not a race." Well, white is not a race either. Borock (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment The arguments that the concept is imperfect or even stupid do not make it un-notable.Borock (talk) 14:20, 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.  Sandstein  08:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Power Brain Education[edit]

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

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

No notability. CerealKillerYum (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. BenLinus1214 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has notable references. Just needs more of them.--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge with Brain training, though the article is well sourced, but needs some work. Jostain12 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the three sources while being WP:RS do not actually mention the phrase Power Brain Education. Those sources could be used to improve the Brain training article. AadaamS (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough coverage to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 28 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 02:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)[edit]

Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

ISIS is a terrorist organization that controls territory, not a state so it's Wilayats are not automatically assumed to be notable. There are almost no reliable sources covering this article, so it should therefore be deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:

Wilayat al-Furat (ISIL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete both This group is not recognized as an official state and the group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, India, the United States, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt. so how can it have an official province. These articles do not meet the general notability guide line and should be deleted. Mhhossein (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - cannot we just make one vote instead of multiple votings over and over again for ISIL governorates??GreyShark (dibra) 14:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can find at least 3 sources that have covered this subject. Noteswork (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are no ISIL Governorates - and ISIL does not even hold this region. A fictitious non-entity. Be better is Greyshark would stop recreating these one line "articles" with bogus sources like a pro-Assad blog. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Imaginary entity's. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here where a similar article was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Hama_(ISIL) Legacypac 19:17, 22 December 2014

• Delete - Zero amount of notability and the above link shows that similar article was deleted before. Noteswork (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both cannot seem to find any shred of notability. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposed for deletion with sister articles now. [7] Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 24 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. If anyone feels that a redirect would be useful please feel free, but the target discussed doesn't currently mention this title.Michig (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big is Better[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to be a notable comic book series. A search fails to find enough significant or reliable coverage, just sites affiliated with the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion: You can not determine the influence of a gay erotic comic if you simply google the title "Big is Better". This is comic book in a specific genre, for the LGBT community. You have to google "Big is better gay comics", and you will get enough results. The comic was published in two paperback books and sold thousands of copies worldwide. I am shocked by how irresponsable you are simply because you ignore the LGBT community with your "failed search" without any real depth . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophetdenton (talk • contribs) 01:41, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look using those search terms and while I got lots of results nothing leapt out from a WP:N point of view - I was looking for independant reviews, interviews and profiles. Adding that sort of thing to the page, if you can find it, is going to be what makes a difference. Artw (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

looks like it made the long list for the Lamba Literary Award [8], though it is quite a long longlist. Artw (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. There are no secondary sources cited in the article, and when I Google searched (adding the terms gay and comic to the "big is better" string), I found 0 relevant news results and no independent coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just provide you with secondary sources on the talk page, and take a look at it before you jump to your harsh decision. You are not taking any time, it's not responsable.Prophetdenton (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You only take one second to google it, and when I offer you the secondary source on the talk page, nobody even take a look. The whole process of deleting this article only takes seconds, it's kind of laughable. Please be serious for one second.Prophetdenton (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely frustrated and disappointed at how you guys work here at Wiki. Nothing serious. If wiki is running into its financial crisis, it get to have something to do with this. Don't expect any donation from me in the future, cause I will not support this group of people who are not devoted to their work. The ignorance should not win. But sadly it does right here. I am not calling you C.Fred ignorant, but you are in this case.Prophetdenton (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources[edit]

1. Amazon.com Sale Page
2. Publisher Website Sale Page
3. Official Website of the Artist

Other Secondary Sources as requested[edit]

1. Video Review
2. Review by the Artist

• Delete. Although it may not be immediately obvious to newer editors, Wikipedia has inclusion criteria. The fact that we don't publicize this better is an issue that I'd like to see addressed. In this case, I can not find any reliable sources that discuss the subject. A review of the comic by the artist himself, bloggers, etc is not good enough. Basically, what we need here is a review by a professional journalist. It doesn't have to be The New York Times; see this list of vetted resources by WikiProject Comics. The quality of the artwork, number of fans, etc do not matter. We need professional reviews, and these apparently do not exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not Superman comic! It's a gay erotic comic book in a very specific genre for a small community! What journalists like to talk about is celebrity's sex scandal and TV drama gossip which wiki seems to cover plenty.Prophetdenton (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example: Existing Wiki Page: Paris Hilton Sex Tape

• Redirect or Delete. We could redirect the article to Bruno Gmünder Verlag, its publisher. Or redirect to an article about gay erotica, if there is one. Also User:Prophetdenton might consider mentioning this comic in article about erortic comics. The threshold for mentioning something in an article is its verifiability, not WP:GNG. Imho the article doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG in a demonstrable way and then it can't be a standalone for as long as it doesn't. AadaamS (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should totally keep Paris Hilton's sex tap wiki Paris Hilton Sex Tape Wiki and delete an author's published art work.Prophetdenton (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have every right to investigate the sources for that Paris Hilton article and nominate it for deletion, although that article isn't the subject of this disscussion. Back to the actual topic: I can only assume since you are not providing more links to WP:RS and start to talk about publication, that you simply have given up on finding more sources? Publication doesn't imply notability. AadaamS (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think Paris Hilton is worthy of being noted for an encyclopedia but Wiki has its own standards, not to mention her sex tape make a complete wiki page is just not serious. I am sure you will find enough sources for her sexual intercourse recording. Ridiculous but No discussion there.If you only find things people talk about on the internet worthy "notable", then we don't need an encyclopedia like wiki.Prophetdenton (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• by saying that you are simplely denying years' hard work of an artist while admitting if a celebrity had sex in a hotel bathroom and wiki found enough links googling it, it's more notable than a published book.Prophetdenton (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People wonder why Wiki failed on such an epic level for the past few year, this is why. If wiki could add more flexibility to its rigid standards and stop discouraging the contributors by saying "your stuff is not good enough for us", maybe it would make a change somehow.Prophetdenton (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imho the sex tape article is a worthy candidate for merging into the Paris Hilton article. The only reason I can identify for its current existence is a reference in the form of a book about that tape in the "Further reading" section of that article. Back to the topic: hard work doesn't imply notability. You will not find many Wikipedians that interpret the notability guidelines to mean "what people talk about on the internet", such an interpretation would clearly be in the minority and since Wikipedia is consensus based, keeping an article on such an interpretation is likely to fail. AadaamS (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote your own words"The only reason I can identify for its current existence is a reference in the form of a book about that tape in the "Further reading" section of that article." Which is still not a good argument for why the current existence of Paris Hilton's Porno DVD is notable enough for a whole wiki page, it's the most trivia thing one can think of for a published book - my sex tape reference.Prophetdenton (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Litterally seconds after the article was published, it was nominated for deletion, so if you are convincing me that "You will not find many Wikipedians that interpret the notability guidelines to mean "what people talk about on the internet", it's clearly not the truth. Back to the subject, I've provided enough sources, they are being ignored or marked "not notable". Not keeping a book worthy of being noted is the reason to fail, not what you think the reason is. Prophetdenton (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is published without reliable sources (please read this link) it is likely to be nominated for deletion, yes. You have provided sources and the consensus is that the sources don't measure up. I can only encourage you to find more. It doesn't have to be published on the internet, if any expert in the field have written about these comics in paperback, that is good enough if you give the ISBN number. Please stop writing to me as if I want to keep the sex tape article, when I have already encouraged you to have it deleted or merged to Paris Hilton article. I have no further interest in that topic. Also please correctly indent your responses. Good day, AadaamS (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]