< 3 December	5 December >

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

The result was delete. Though the subject appears to be notable, this article needs starting from scratch. Sam Walton (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wense Grabarek[edit]

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

Not sure whether this is a Bio, an WP:NOTESSAY or an unsourced WP:POLITICIAN. It appears to only cover a short segment of life related to the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a real person and possibly even notable but this is just a confusing wall of text, not a real article. Would happily change my vote if someone substitutes something article shaped with references. Artw (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rambling essay, difficult to follow, unsourced, not written in an encyclopedic manner. If anyone wants to, they can start a new article, but there is nothing in this one worth saving. The king of the sun (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, terribly formatted entry which is impossible to follow and has no unifying theme. This essay does not belong in Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia, for that matter). BenLinus1214 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although checking google the individual is notable and deserves an article, there is nothing here upon which to build. No sources, no coherence, high POV. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is unsalvageable. It looks like it's destined for WP:TNT — kikichugirl ^inquire 22:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just searched Newspapers.com and there are over 100 articles from the 60s on him. Just skimming through them, he looks to have been notable in 1960s desegregation. I could add these articles, but do you think the current article should just be deleted and then start building a source article? --I am One of Many (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the subject is notable, but this article needs a dose of WP:TNT.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 12:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IaOoM, I think that is what most of us are saying. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illawarra bus routes[edit]

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

This article is written entirely from primary sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT, specifically NOTDIR and NOTTRAVEL. Charles (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - We ain't a directory of bus routes. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 15:07, 6 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 article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steep turn (aviation)[edit]

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

No references to establish the existence of this as a specific term of art, or to verify anything else in the aricle. Tagged for three months. Could be a worthwhile article if referenced, but it's not worth much in its present state. —Swpb^talk 20:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 21:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. There are plenty of references, they just need to be added to the article. In furtherance of my vaguewave: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. That's from the first Google results page. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NRVE, articles do not necessarily require references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. Andrew D. (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, Have added a few references from reputed government aviation authorities linked to ICAO. I've mentioned this once earlier to the proposer, considering this page for deletion is as good as considering 'Takeoff' or 'Landing' for deletion. A 'Steep Turn' is a published aviation manoeuvre taught to every SINGLE pilot, (Student, Private and Commercial). Css1986. (talk) 23:40, 6 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This company no longer exists. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners was purchased by Kinder Morgan Inc. on Nov. 26 2014. A page for Kinder Morgan Inc. already exists. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners page is no longer valid. Saraloeff (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment But this company did exist. For an example, see Austin Motor Company. If Wikipedia were a directory, a non-current entity would be out of scope. However, it is an encyclopaedia, and past entities (or long out of fashion pop singers...) still have articles - because they WERE notable. If this company wasn't notable, it should go. If it was notable, then either this should stay as an article, or become a redirect after the relevant material is merged into the new owners' article. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the links at the top. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as has been said, the fact that it doesn't exist independently anymore doesn't automatically make it non-notable. If it was notable before the restructuring it is notable now. I would be willing to consider a merge to the Kinder Morgan page. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enron, Hitler and Alexander the Great don't exist any more either. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because it doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean it's not notable. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are many articles on things that don't currently exist. Just because the company is no longer independently owned (as Keithonearth said above) doesn't mean that the company is no longer notable. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This company earned its notability before it was purchased by Kinder Morgan Inc. on November 26, 2014. Per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary and the article should be kept. - tucoxn\^talk 02:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its stock was traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 8 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 22:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Miss–UAB football rivalry[edit]

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

No indication this "rivalry" meets WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY. Unsuccessful in finding national sources that indicate this was ever considered a major "rivalry", which makes this article original research. UAB since disbanded their program, so its unlikely they will play again. Prod removed with no rationale by an IP user with a history of disruptive, non-explaination prod removals. Delete. Secret ^account 19:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nominator is correct, nothing in the sources indicates this is a rivalry or anything more than two teams who have competed against each other. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research topic. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding significant coverage of the type expected under WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY to establish that this brief (15 years), and now discontinued, series was a sufficiently notable rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McHenry[edit]

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

Non notable person. Was speedied by me but removed by creator. Was then redirected to Food Not Bombs@Nyttend: but that too was reverted by creator. Gbawden (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the strength of sources found: [6][7][8][9][10][11]. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given for deletion nomination or re-direct. I move to close the discussion. Cleshne (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason the nominator is giving is "Non notable person", is it not? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of secondary source coverage; Dylan's pulled up just news articles about what the guy's doing (and Forbes is just the guy answering questions; not even any substantial content written by the Forbes staff), and by definition, these are primary sources. Provide coverage in books, academic journals, major websites, and other things that are chronologically independent of the guy and his actions. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying use the stuff in the Forbes piece to cite statements in the article though am I. I'm saying the very fact that Forbes deem him worthy of being interviewed lends credence to his claims of notability, a la WP:INTERVIEWS. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources given by Dylanfromthenorth establish notability of this very minor political activist. since the name is not unique, I googled "Keith McHenry" + "Iraq War" and quite a few mentions and even interviews in small anti-war news outlets popped up.ShulMaven (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide secondary sources please? Primary sources do not contribute to notability. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have not experienced anything like this on Wikipedia, and think that there is a question of good faith as well as a political agenda. First the complaint was non-notable person, and the article was deleted and redirected before a debate took place; now the problem is lack of secondary sources. Next it will be grammar? Cleshne (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The reason for deletion originally given was "non-notable person." I think this is resolved after more info was added and others also found notability. After the page was deleted without debate or consensus by another user, Nyttend, the issue of secondary sources was brought up, but I have never seen that as a reason for the deletion of an article, which was originally created as a stub. I would like to see the pending deletion notice removed from the page. Cleshne (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD czar ⨹ 05:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dylanfromthenorth and WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews may be primary sources but they do count as an indication of notability. We treat Food Not Bombs as a notable organization, well sourced. As a founder and leader of that organization and a frequently interviewed activist, I think he's notable enough. I did add a ((more footnotes)) tag. The article could use more inline cites. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 16:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Dylanfromthenorth - Direct coverage in multiple mid to high quality RS's. NickCT (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. Inline citations would sure have been useful, though (not to mention required for BLPs). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 15:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dunphy[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this article is being worked on as part of an editathon, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland in WWI Editathon Dec 2014. Perhaps patience with new editors is called for. Where serious issues exist, it might be preferable to contact the "trainers". ClemMacGána (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is a rather unwifified and orphaned article, which was produced by a group of students during the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/UCD Decade of Centenaries Editathon Nov 2014. I think if some of the details of his career were foregrounded: first military adviser to the Chief of Staff of the Irish Army (Cathal Brugha) and appointed second in command at the Curragh. Perhaps if the article is deemed unwarranted, the content could be incorporated into the relevant sections of Royal Dublin Fusiliers? Smirkybec (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no evidence that WP:BIO is met here Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a genealogical article. Junior officer with no particular distinguishing features. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've reworked the article to be more in line with Wikipedia standards. He was a high ranking member of the new Irish Army, so I thought it was worth trying to save. Smirkybec (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kudos to User:Smirkybec for making the article look a lot better, but a good looking article doesn't make up for the lack of direct coverage in RS or the failure to meet any of the WP:SOLDIER criteria. Still a delete. NickCT (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 02:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Blake (duelist)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find any references that would merit Sally Blake's notability. It seems like her only claim to fame is one duel (that didn't even happen), which would fall under WP:1E. Tavix | Talk 02:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the WP:1E, but toss in some WP:ANYBIO. You could simplify this all down into the core WP:BASIC; To quote, Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Our Primary source here is a statement of existence and using it for anything beyond that on its own can fall into WP:SYNTH. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E, I couldn't find any sources giving more information on the subject. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per User:Cerebellum. No sources. NickCT (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find vague hints that Milltown Sketches might exist, but not an ISBN or publisher. Of Sally Blake, sadly, I found nothing. Artw (talk) 23:53, 4 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 per WP:CSD#G5. Sockpuppet blocked, title salted. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anaitha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance; recreation of a page that's been deleted 3 times -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:57, 4 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 22:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Bolè[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No indications of any significant coverage for this person. Citations given are all primary sources: listings of Bole's work available online. Claims of award nominations are not cited and cannot be verified. The 2012 Teen Choice Awards article did not mention him as one of the nominees for Choice Web Star until this article was proposed for deletion, at which time an IP editor both removed the PROD and updated the Teen Choice Awards page to list Bole as a nominee, despite the fact that Bole's name does not appear anywhere in the Teen Choice Awards official site. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. Per nom, no evidence of notability; cannot find reliable sources. Harsh (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the amount of vandalism that has occurred on the page itself, and here on this discussion page, the assumption of good faith flies out the window, and we have to be left with the impression that someone is trying to slip something by here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah... no. A quick look at his YouTube and Twitter quickly dispels the claims of him being nominated for various awards, as there is no way that someone who is popular and well known enough to get nominated for two web awards (Teen Choice Awards, Streamy Award) would have less than 2,000 followers on YouTube and 16,000 followers on Twitter. I also want to note that despite claims in the article that his YouTube channel was what pushed him into the spotlight enough for the TCA and SAs, the channel apparently shows that he joined up back in September of this year. The claims in the article are pretty ludicrous and they're so outlandish that there isn't any way that he wouldn't have any coverage in the media. A 13 year old competing in a national ceramics competition and can be instantly recognized by his face by a major media outlet? A YT channel that manages to get nominated for two major awards? Someone like this would be covered in the media or at least have a ton of fan chatter since the TCA and SA are both ultimately based on popularity- especially the TCA. The guy does seem to exist, he released some music this year, and he has a YouTube channel, but other than that everything else is at worst a hoax and at best he's just plain old fashioned "not notable". Since this is the second time that someone has tried to create a page for him and this version contained such obvious falsehoods (likely done in an attempt to make him seem more notable and less likely to be deleted), I'd recommend salting. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely recommend salting, considering that we've had multiple IPs come on here and vandalize the AfD discussion. That's a pretty big sign that they'll only continue to try to re-add the page until it's salted. Given the extremely limited coverage for Mr. Bolè, I can only assume that these efforts are by Bolè himself and I'd like to give him this warning: Mr. Bolè, the Internet by large is not stupid. They will very, very easily see through your efforts to bolster your reputation by posting what is pretty much outright lies on to Wikipedia or any other site. This will not make it more likely that you will become more popular. If anything, this will mostly make you more of an appealing target for the various people on the Internet who like to troll people like you. (I'm not one of them, but I've seen it happen to others.) I'd highly recommend that you put all of this effort into making and improving your videos, as this sort of energy is largely wasted and will be extremely unlikely to result in any favorable end on your behalf. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Tokyogirl79, completely non notable person. Additional Comment There appears to be efforts by 87.13.70.251 to disrupt this AfD, including removal of AfD templates and editing other users statements. I have since reported the ip to WP:AIV. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, non-notable, seemingly self-promotional, and disruptive editing by creator including demonstrably false information and deletion of templates. Melcous (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person exists, but not notable. The information is not reliable, but we can improve. They made a mess! We should rewrite the information again. 10:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.232.238 (talk)
Delete an identical version under Draft:Yves Bole has been rejected three times. This version can't possibly be more notable than a thrice rejected identical copy. This article has already been created and deleted multiple times under the names Yves Bole and Yosvani Leon Alonso. Helpsome (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This is clearly just an editing dispute over what content belongs in this list, not a matter for AFD. This discussion should proceed on the list's talk page. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of beneficiaries of immigration/nationality-related United States Private Bills/Laws[edit]

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

Delete: as article (list) creator, I have observed that following subsequent changes, the list does not provide the information or serve the purpose for which it was designed. Quis separabit? 15:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not 100% related to the deletion argument, but how on earth have so many "related" AfDs, none of which are relevant, gotten linked into here? Oo Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because when the nominator created the AfD they gave it the heading of "laws" rather than the full title. Which caused every single AfD starting with "laws" to be linked in here. Altamel (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed. postdlf (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Postdlf. Quis separabit? 21:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists of notable persons with material in common do not automatically get deleted because the "creator" (owner?) seeks it to have purposes other than the clear statement of purpose inherent in its title - Wikipedia does not generally allow lists of non-notable living persons to be articles. Collect (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say "notable" in the title; lists on Wikipedia of people killed by police officers and of police offers killed in the line of duty unavoidably contain non-linked/non-stand alone entries, as did this list. I am not claiming ownership as no one owns articles on Wikipedia, I am sorry to have to remind @Collect. As I am the only editor to compile or add to the list I can attest, however, IMHO, that the list has been stubbed down to near pointlessness, so it's really not in the interest of Wikipedia, its editors or the public to be maintained. Even sufficiently notable individuals, at least for purposes of listifying, given their connections to stand alone individuals such as Owney Madden and Elizabeth Taylor, are disputed. Aside from myself, only @Collect and @Edward321 touched the list and that was to remove 95% of it, claiming that any name which is not a stand alone article is non-notable or OR, despite sourcing. I am asking that the the list be deleted as it no longer reflects my vision. If those who claim to want to keep it by voting on this AFD really wish to do so, they are free to recompile a new list after this one has been deleted and name it whatever they choose. Quis separabit? 21:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 15:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Jeanette[edit]

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

Performer does not yet have a record contract, or any significant productions. No in-depth discussion in third-party sources. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Harsh (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG with no important contributions except a couple of written songs. KonveyorBelt 20:14, 6 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 ~~Consensus to delete~~ The majority of participants made strong policy based arguments for deletion. Chillum 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned by No Consensus upon review -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Hess[edit]

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

This article is about a woman who started a business in Portland, Oregon, USA where she hugs people for $60/hour. This article does not meet notability guidelines. A proper thing to do would either be deletion or redirect to Cuddling. All the references are about the novelty of cuddling, not Samantha Harris. There is not much depth in coverage and no coverage about her biography, such as if she has a Ph.D. in Cuddle Science from the University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cuddling (no such department or degree), or how she is a pioneer in the field of skin research. If the user's name creating the article was SamanthaHess, this user would have been blocked and the article deleted. That shows that the article should be deleted. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Redirect to Cuddling. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination is implication that you want the article deleted, so I've struck through this duplicate !vote. Note though, that a redirect doesn't necessitate deleting the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should paid cuddling become a "thing", rather than a novelty, then there should be a page for it, and a possible redirect from Samantha Hess. As it is, this is almost a "single event", and definitely a novelty item. Time will tell. LaMona (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:BLP1E - not quite as bad as Jasmine Tridevil but still something which only has a brief amount of news coverage, and not really enough long term sources to justify an article. I don't support a redirect to cuddling as she is not specifically and highly notable for that topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is pretty much a WP:BLP1E case - most, if not quite all, of the sources come from the same period in late 2013/early 2014, indicative of the type of business that gets a good PR agent and some coverage and then fades away into the background again. No lasting notability, and therefore doesn't get over the bar of WP:GNG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on. First of all no one messaged me about it and second I talked to @OccultZone: I think (or was it @Randykitty:), and he said that it was fairly notable.--Mishae (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit it sounds odd but: First of all, BLP1E is irrelevant; someone having a profession is not an "event"--she does it on a continuing basis. It would be a single event if the coverage was based on a report of her having done one publicized session. Second, with respect to the academic degrees, academic degrees are nor required for an occupation to be notable, or for a person in an occupation to be notable., certainly not a personal services occupation. Anything can be made ridiculous by making it sound pretentious--I consider the nomination as in that respect prejudicial. Third, the nom has been blocked repeatedly as "clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia." Fourth, the refs seem to hold up: the CBC one is definitely about her. I do not even think the refs are just PR--a press agent may have called them to the attention of the reporters, but the reporters wrote their stories because they thought it would be of interest. Fifth, the requirement for inclusion in wikipedia isn notability, not lasting notability; once something is notable it remains notable for our purposes, we're a publication of record not a news digest. sixth, thinking about the service it actually makes a certain amount of sense. The article does need a little rewriting, but that doesn't require deletion. Incidentally, there 's an article for Cuddle party, not apparently related but a similar idea. DGG ( talk ) 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator has been permanently blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Deadbeef 07:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note Nominator is currently unblocked to request a change of username - they were blocked for their username not for their behaviour on the wiki. 11:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  - @Deadbeef: and @Neonchameleon: The nominator was in fact blocked for an inappropriate username, however his nomination shows that he is not here to contribute. I will forgive him though (read me statement on the bottom), but if he will continue to make such unwise nominations and covering it up with WP:1EVENT, I am sorry but his block for fake nomination wont be too far off. So far I assume good faith in the editor and am hoping that he is here to do as great amount of work not just randomly nominating articles for deletion in an attempt to punish admins who forced him to change his name. Plus, it is April fools day to randomly nominate articles for deletions either. :) I personally wont laugh if someone will nominate Samantha Hess for deletion on April fools day!--Mishae (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient wp:RS to pass the GNG. wp:BLP1E isn't relevant here as it's not a single event. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I also need to point out that the nominator thought that this article should be deleted because someone wrote an article on Samantha Harris no to long ago. I need to assume that it was an honest mistake by a nominator, however he still needs to nominate articles carefully and not assuming that if the previous article had the same first and/or last name it should be nominated without a hassle.--Mishae (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From the sources it looks like this woman had 15 minutes of fame in the earlier part of this year. It's true that WP:BLP1E is a little hard to apply here because technically this isn't an "event" per se. That said, it seems pretty obvious that the spirit of BLP1E applies. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Difference? I personally see WP:1EVENT rule being applied only to events, besides, I have added Business Insider refs and will probably find more. I should also point out that this AfD nomination was the nominators attempt on trolling since he was blocked for it and apparently left the project on November 30 of this year. If I would have been an admin I would have closed this AfD right now as keep per nominator's former trolling history.--Mishae (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of National Football League records (individual)#Interception return touchdowns. (Closing early since everyone (inc creator) are in favour of redirecting, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interception Returns for Touchdown[edit]

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

I don't understand what this article is about. There are three external sources, non of which mention "Interception Returns for Touchdown". Vanjagenije (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of National Football League records (individual)#Interception return touchdowns. No reason to have a standalone article for one of the hundreds upon hundreds of records on this list, but I'm sure a cheap redirect would benefit at least one person somewhere, sometime in the future of the project. Deadbeef 10:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article's creator, I agree with a Redirect to List of National Football League records (individual)#Interception return touchdowns. I initially intended to add such a list as many other statistics records are tabulated. Ibarabi (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect if there's no objection from the nominator, a redirect ought to do just fine.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per above. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 05:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup Surprise[edit]

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

This is some kind of original research. There is no source that discuss such a concept as a "World Cup Surprise". The concept is made up by the author of this article. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research bundled together in badly-worded essay format. --DAJF (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article basically seems to be "surprise selections of the Japan football team during world cup competitions." As well as being point of view, it's hard to imagine a realistic article which can be created on that which doesn't violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:ESSAY, all of which this article is. Valenciano (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR; per User:Valenciano. Harsh (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously Original Research –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't even know what this article is about...?! Giant Snowman 09:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR, WP:ESSAY, and blatant WP:NPOV violations. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per OR. IJA (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 05:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with smartphone use[edit]

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

WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Dunno even if the sources are even fine, as it's quite literally Japanese to me. :P slakr^\ talk / 09:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a candidate for Speedy Deletion or at least a redirect to the Issues section of Smartphone Mike1901 (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is redundant to Smartphone#Issues. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay /original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Waffling essay and original research. --DAJF (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the waffling. Article provides insights into smartphone usage not found on wikipedia yet and supported by research data. Rather than delete, how about a redirect to Issues section of Smartphone User:kyodaiteeter — Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per RHaworth & User:kyodaiteeter - Looks like an essay. NickCT (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:No original research. This article is a synthesis of published material, which is original research. - tucoxn\^talk 02:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:SOAP and WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is an essay about this and that of relevance to Japan only. Not encyclopedic material. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:07, 9 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. (Closing early per WP:SNOW). Clear consensus that the subject is only notable for one event, per WP:BLP1E. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Lauten[edit]

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

BLP1E. excessive coverage of a single event where the subject is peripherially involved. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WP:BLP1E. I actually declined an A7 speedy, but @DGG:'s too fast for me. :P --slakr^\ talk / 08:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:BLP1E; All three conditions for being notable only for one event occurs in this case. --Maduwanwela (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:BLP1E; Agree with the others and in actual fact would question whether the subject is notable at all WP:N. Even in the context of the one event there is no significant coverage of Elizabeth Lauten that I can find. No online bios etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place to have a bio. Wikipedia is not news WP:NOTNEWS see 3."Who's who" -- Marksterdam (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete open-and-shut BLP1E case. Deadbeef 10:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:BLP1E. I made the first request for a speedy A7, but understand if discussion is requested. Arzel (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP1E. Only known for a Facebook post. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Receives little or no mention in RS before the Facebook post incident. WP:BLP1E rationale holds. NickCT (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete please --WP:BLP1E. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article is clearly notable only for one event and the article should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. Elizabeth Lauten was not notable before her Facebook post, which is the only cause for her news coverage. This AfD should be able to be closed under Wikipedia's snowball clause. - tucoxn\^talk 23:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lets be honest she wasn't even known before she made the idiotic comment, In a week everyone'll forget her!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:51, 5 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:CSD#G3 hoax. I note that after being PRODded with a request for sources the page was blanked on 1 Dec by its original creator, and blanked again on 3 Dec by an SPA with edit summary "This page is giving false information". JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10: Ultimate Omniverse[edit]

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

Unsourced future series. I am unable to find anything confirming this exists, other than user-created websites. Prior to creating this article, the editor added several unsourced future series here. When this article was proded, they first removed the prod, then blanked the article. (They are not responding to talk requests, so I don't know why.) Other editors have blanked the page, claiming it is "false" or adding a reference to a non-existant Wikipedia article. (Ben 10 articles are a long-term target of a recurring vandal, but I don't know if they are involved.) SummerPhD (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 05:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the schedule about this series premiering anytime soon, and judging from the original Omniverse series having a 6am 'burn-off 'o shame' earlier this fall to get some kind of financial discount on the Q4 Turner financial statement/taxes, CN obviously isn't continuing the Ben 10 series any further. No sources for this, and the usual fantasy TV nonsense where our dreamer assumes with Ultimate Alien, surely Ultimate Omniverse is next. Nate • (chatter) 05:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. IF Cartoon Network was going to release a sneak peek episode in 10 days then they would be promoting the show and we'd at least see a few press releases trying to drum up publicity and hype. There's no way that they wouldn't do at least a bare minimum of publicity, so this marks it as a complete hoax. What makes it even more of a hoax is the complete and total lack of fan chatter. The Ben 10 fanbase isn't as large as it once was, but it is still out there and they're a pretty vocal bunch. (I should know, my nephew used to worship this show.) IF this was going to happen, they'd be talking about it... and they're not. So again, pretty blatant proof of it being a hoax. I'll tag it accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 5 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, snow close. I'm snow closing this one because I can't see this ending any other way, especially since it's largely redundant to other articles on the topic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gas when Driving a Car[edit]

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

Are tips appropriate for Wikipedia? William2001 (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nope, they're not. This article is a how to guide on saving gas when driving, which is a pretty clear violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Duplicate of Energy-efficient driving. Probably meets A10. Altamel (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 19:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prithviraj Sankhala[edit]

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

Mid level civil servant. Not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. The references do not support the article and make only marginal references to him and are not enough. Uncletomwood (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom - non notable civil servant, just doing his job Gbawden (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A couple high quality RSs here, but only passing mention rather than direct coverage. The creator of this article seems to have made other BLPs which were deleted. NickCT (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors considered the best[edit]

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

Listcruft and completely subjective article. Other "considered the best" lists are based on specific surveys and polls. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for specific surveys and polls, included in the list are those who topped the the American Film Institute's survey--TBBC (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe start over. This is more like a List of actors with the most awards, which is not the same thing as the "best", whatever that means. Where's Brando? Olivier? Bogart may be the greatest star/legend, but his name doesn't really come up in the best actor discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping when I found the surveys to find both Marlon Brando and Laurence Olivier topped at least one. I even did a google search for greatest British actor, but most of those polls were IMDB made by one user, not some British film institute or magazine or something like that --TBBC (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment No Burt Reynolds on the list? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 2:58 am, Today (UTC−5)

Can that vote not count? That's more POV than anything, there are precisely ZERO of my favourite actors on the list.--

TBBC (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Mr. Comedy. Delete as it fails WP:V and is a huge slice of WP:OR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I'll take that as Delete and maybe start over--TBBC (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, take that as a delete and leave it at that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I explained to you I did look for specific polls, and I'm sure I'll find some. --TBBC (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Give it time.--TBBC (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to !vote twice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V and WP:OR. Polls wouldn't generally be considered reliable secondary sources anyway. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently subjective, if someone mentioned in a RS that they thought that William Shatner or Britney Spears were the best actors of all time, should we include them here? A retitled article, framed around User:Clarityfiend's suggestion of collecting actors who have won the highest number of awards, might be a good way to proceed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Well as I previous said, I don't include IMDB user polls.--TBBC (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inclusion criteria for this list is impossible to objectively define, and therefore violates WP:NPOV and has the potential to devolve into original research per WP:OR if any attempt is made to determine the "best" by counting awards. As an encyclopedia we should be listing Academy Awards, Golden Globes, BAFTAs, Emmys, etc., not trying make subjective pronouncements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I keep saying, it won't just be awards, it'd be polls from critics, magazines, tv stations etc. etc. etc. as soon as I find them.--TBBC (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your methodology/selection process is the very definition of original research. And, yes, it's a problem: this list, as defined, should not exist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you're taking the wrong approach. Don't go by awards. (Does anybody think The Greatest Show on Earth is a good film, even though it won a couple of Oscars and Golden Globes?) Look for respected actors, directors and reviewers who voice their opinions. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt highly indiscriminate listcruft. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is this list indiscriminate.--TBBC (talk) 11:01, 9 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 a blatant hoax. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sawant Sharma[edit]

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

This article and some facts in it (ranked first on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, having 95 Grammies, having 950 billion dollars) are a possible hoax; searching for Sawant Sharma just gives results of social networking profiles with Sawant Sharma. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax, I've already tagged it as such. The claims made in this article are way too bombastic to be true. Everymorning talk to me 04:07, 4 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 22:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IDS NEXT Software[edit]

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for notability Lakun.patra (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 4 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 05:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panacea Dreamweavers[edit]

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

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:CORP. Sources linked barely mention the company and are just routine product announcements. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:17, 4 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 Collabera. czar ⨹ 07:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IVL India[edit]

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

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Collabera: I am not finding more than routine acquisition announcements on this company; lack of notability in its own right so best redirected to the article about the firm of which it became part. AllyD (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Collabera - software company of unclear notability; the one ref on an acquisition is on its own not sufficient to establish notabilty, and a redirect to the now-parent company makes sense.Dialectric (talk) 04:19, 8 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KreataGlobal[edit]

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

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The included articles from India are repeating company PR, with the only claim to notability being inclusion on Facebook’s list of 'Preferred Marketing Developers.' On its own, this does not meet the threshold for notability, and a search turned up no further RS coverage. This article's creator is an SPA with a name similar to the company, so article is possibly promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - A quick news search reveals sufficient coverage from top caliber sources such as Times of India, Reuters, and the Economic Times to establish notability. A possible COI is not relevant toward notability, and it takes two minutes to read to article and determine it is not promotional. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ThaddeusB The news releases mostly tells of it buying 2 start-ups but nothing else about the company is mentioned. It may also be a case of WP:TOOSOON and may not pass WP:NCORP as the news references you have provided may be trivial and will require additional sources for citation. I have no objection if you can go ahead and add some more sources to make it notable.Lakun.patra (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the coverage is irrelevant. Reliable source coverage is reaiable source coverage. As far as saying "nothing" about the company goes, buying competitors, signing contracts, opening new offices, etc. is what companies do. (Your statement is also untrue, as some of the articles do give background info about Kreata Global too.) I think you misunderstand the definition of trivial coverage. Trivial coverage is a sentence mentioning so-and-so company in an article about a larger topic. An article about the activities of a company can never be classified as "trivial coverage". Finally, adding more sources to an article does not make a subject notable, the existance of said sources makes it notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the coverage is not irrelevant. WP:CORPDEPTH states that a range of reasons/content including "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business" and "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" are trivial coverage. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. I suggest you point out a specific source or sources which you believe represent significant coverage and that pass WP:CORPDEPTH. As I state above, I found none.Dialectric (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is semantic confusion here, probably caused by me... The reason for coverage is not relevant, the depth of the coverage is. "Brief announcements of mergers" doesn't mean stories about mergers are automatically excluded, but rather exactly what it says: routine, brief mentions of such announcements do not convey notability. I'm not sure why you bring up articles sourced exclusively from quotes, but that is exactly the same idea - they have zero depth of coverage.

As to the actual, relevant question... This is no reasonable way anyone can exclude the Reuters\VCC article as being trivial coverage. Likewise for the Economic Times story. Both provide in depth coverage of Kreata; both are top quality sources. The fact such coverage was prompted by an acquisition is not relevant in assessing the quality of the coverage. (Dozens of more sources are various other aspects of the business can eaisly be found - these are simply the first two high quality links I came across.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough RS coverage to meet WP:CORP, e.g. [12] [13] [14] Note, however, that the Reuters link [15] was actually provided by VCCircle, not Reuters, and so is of questionable reliability. Everymorning talk to me 02:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but there is no reason to believe VCC is an unreliable source. It is an Indian business news company with editorial control and partnerships with major news providers. Accoridng to our article "VCCircle is one of the important voice of the industry". The fact that Reuteurs chose to print it (they don't blindly print all VCC authored stories) suggests Reuters also deemed the news notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' On all the searches i see : "Acquisition of Flamingos - Flamingos is given more importance than Kreata Global". "Facebook Preferred Marketing Developer - Its an award it got only but doesn't say anything about the company" "Buys a new office space in Kochi". Thats all?? All that has been mentioned in the and still its a stub. So expect Facebook what all service lines does it deal in?? What is the Employee metrics of the company?? How much revenues does it generate? What is its operating profit? What is its history? Any other updated news in the recent time?(FB news was in 2012). Where all does it serve??? I am virtually getting no idea of what more content can be added.Audiences are more interested in the above mentioned things rather than where it bought a new office. Acquisitions are needed in an article but only a single Acquisition can not make an article. There is practically nothing as of now that can be added to the content of the company so that it doesn't remain a stub. I quote "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered". The creator of this page is also a WP:SPA. So if anything relevant about the article is added it might not be referenced and will require additional citations which we don't have any as of now. So what is the point if we cannot provide something substantial in an article except some trivial acquisition in 2012/13.Wikipedia is not a place for definitions or news releases. If any one does provide relevant sources then i have no objection to it remaining an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakun.patra (talk • contribs) 03:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary, nor is their a requirement for specific information to make a company notable. Attracting attention for acquisitions and Facebook partnership (or any other reason) is sufficient to warrant notability. And no, those aren't the other pieces of information available - just the easiest to prove notability. As has been proven, sufficient sources exist (it's not "too soon") - some subjects can only be stubs with available info; that is not an issue. All that said, the company is based in India. The specific info you desire probably exists in relevant trade publications, but not being from India I don't really know what those are (and they may not be in English, as it is not the most common language of India.)

As to the article creator's motive, AfD doesn't deal with conflicts of interest. The reason the article was created is not relevant to the subject's notability. Additionally, the author followed best practices and put the article through AfC where is was deemed sufficiently notable and neutrally written by a third party. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 4 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 and redirect to Quest Global. czar ⨹ 05:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeST Software[edit]

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

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' to Quest Global - Software company article of unclear notability. The ref provided is RS, but shows only that the company was acquired by Quest Global. I found one other article on the acquisition, but no further significant coverage. These articles are not sufficient to establish notability independent of the now-parent company. This article's creator is an SPA, so it is possibly promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -- Subject is not notable at all WP:N. Clearly no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources WP:ORG. Articles about the take over of the company are not independent as they are PR for the company taking them over Quest Global who are also don't fulfill WP:ORG in my opinion. Also Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages WP:NOTCATALOG. Clearly promotional seeking to look neutral by an SPA. Many reasons for deletion. Thanks -- Marksterdam (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No substantive references (online or print) from reliable media sources. --Cryptodd (talk) 22:25, 8 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 05:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SneakCast[edit]

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

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ---Fails WP:WEBCRIT, WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I'm unable to find any reliable sources that'd have even passing mentions of the subject. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 15:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vmoksha[edit]

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

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability. The refs provided are RS, but show only a few minor acquisitions and that the company was bought out in 2005. per WP:CORPDEPTH, brief announcements of mergers or sales are not sufficient to establish notability. This article's creator is an SPA, so it is possibly promotional in nature.Dialectric (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that it passes WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 11 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. czar ⨹ 05:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shani Prabhava[edit]

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

Unsourced article does not meet WP:NOTFILM requirements Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No need to send to AFD nine hours after it being contributed. Being unsourced means WP:BEFORE to encourage work, not deletion. This film article is not unsourcable. As this film is one of those of Kannada notable Vishnuvardhan, it certainly had coverage. I would expect Indian members familiar with Kannada language should be able to provide non-english sources, even if only scans of hardcopy sources unavailable online. WP:INDAFD tells us that pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source online. Not being sourcable online is not automatically non-notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Schmidt, As I said in Shrimanthana Magalu's AfD, Even though the article created was unsourced, I did try to find WP:RS before nominating the article for deletion, I was not able to find any, the AfD process gives extra time to find valid sources, unfortunatelly, the citation added is just a one and a half line review and does not establish the needed notability for inclusion. WP:MOVIE shows ways that notability can be established for older films, but in my opinion, it is clear that this film does not meet those guidelines. If reliable sources in any language are found to meet the guidelines for inclusion I will be very happy to change my vote.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but unless you are a Kannada-reading Wikipedian who understands WP:INDAFD, your being "clear" is a subjective opinion. And I am sorry that you were unsuccessful in WP:BEFORE, but your lack of success is not automatically that of others. I would hope this gets re-listed several times, as seven days is not always best for the project. I urge you to consider WP:ATD and use a little restraint before nominating more new stubs about Kannada films after such short waiting periods. AFD is not intended to force cleanup, specially considering the difficulties inherent in sourcing pre-1990s Indian film articles within a seven-day period. I appreciate your concern with the author giving us only basic information, but such may lead to more with the right eyes.

The major involvement of Kannada notables allows a consideration of notability under WP:OEN, and a reasonable expectation that these films did receive some sort of non-English coverage not available online. As the film is at least verifiable, we do not have a policy violation... just an issue that requires Kannada eyes. Tagging for issues and perhaps notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Karnataka for assistance might have been reasonable. Not saying you did anything wrong, but WP:JNN is no reason to toss away possibly improvable stubs over difficulties in finding non-English sources for non-English pre-internet films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will follow your advice, and in the future, I will tag any movie stubs without any claim of notability and wait a prudential time before nominating. According to WP:MOVIE a criteria for inclusion is that "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." hopefully a source will appear to show that this films meet that requirement, or that it was its first or last movie, in personally don't think that is established yet. I include my previous answer to the other two related AfD as I think is relevant for this one as well to meet WP:JNN as you pointed out:

I have much less experience than you and I am learning every day, so I sincerely thank you for the information you sent me. Let me try to explain to you in more detail why I nominated the films and try to show you that it was not just a frivolous WP:JNN. I do agree with you that WP:Verifiability is not an issue here, especially after the new sources you found which clearly establish it. My only concern is with WP:Notability. The guidelines and recommendations you cited all seem to assume that the content is or is claimed to be notable (even if it is not properly sourced). WP:YFA stresses in point 4 that the subject must be notable, and that it should be sourced, after reading WP:INDAFD, I can understand the difficulty on finding reliable sources, and if there would have been an unsourced claim of notability in the articles, I would have tag them instead of nominating them, but in my opinion there is no such claim.

My assumption here is that a film is not automatically notable for having a notable actor like Vishnuvardhan in its cast, or for been a Kannada film.

Since I could not find substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG I looked at WP:MOVIE

The articles do not make any of the included notability claims, I could see no indication that:

it is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

If I made a mistake in the interpretation of this policies I do apologize, my intention is to help, not hinder the project, so I will thankfully accept any guidance you can give me.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for national archives and awards, the jury is still out. I am still looking to verify if "the film was selected for preservation in a national archive" or received "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"... but that OEN list contains more considerations. There is also "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," which is a consideration when giving thought to the involvement of the many Indian notables. I find it hard to believe that such films "never" received attention in the Kannada language. So since it had not yet been done, I've asked for assistance in sourcing from WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, Cinema of Karnataka and WikiProject Karnataka. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, if it is notable they should be able to show it, and if it so happens that any of those criteria you mention are met then I fully agree with you that it should be kept.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a suitable stub which has gone from this to THIS. The article is not a policy violation and it serves the project and its readers to have it remain and be improved over time and through regular editing as Kannada editors are able. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 4 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. Similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shani Prabhava. czar ⨹ 05:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimanthana Magalu[edit]

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

unsourced article, does not meet WP:MOVIE guidelines Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No need to send to AFD ten hours after it being contributed. Being unsourced means WP:BEFORE to encourage work, not deletion. This film article is not unsourcable. As this film is one of those of Kannada notable Vishnuvardhan, it certainly had coverage. I would expect Indian members familiar with Kannada language should be able to provide non-english sources, even if only scans of hardcopy sources unavailable online. WP:INDAFD tells us that pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source online. Not being sourcable online is not automatically non-notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Schmidt, Even though the article created was unsourced, I did try to find WP:RS before nominating the article for deletion, I was not able to find any, the AfD process gives extra time to find valid sources, unfortunatelly, the citation added is just a one and a half line review and does not establish the needed notability for inclusion. WP:MOVIE shows ways that notability can be established for older films, but in my opinion, it is clear that this film does not meet those guidelines. If reliable sources in any language are found to meet the guidelines for inclusion I will be very happy to change my vote.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days? I urge you to read WP:INDAFD before nominating more new stubs about Kannada films after such short waiting period, and understand the difficulty inherent in expecting pre-1990s Indian film articles be improved within a seven-day period. I appreciate your concern with the author giving us only basic information, but such may lead to more with the right eyes. And a major involvement of Kannada notables allows a consideration of notability under WP:OEN. As the film is at least verifiable, we do not have a policy violation... just an issue that requires Kannada eyes. Tagging for issues and perhaps notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Karnataka might have been reasonable under WP:ATD, WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:UGLY. Not saying you did anything wrong, but WP:JNN is no reason to toss this away over western difficulties in finding non-English sources for non-English pre-internet films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have much less experience than you and I am learning every day, so I sincerely thank you for the information you sent me. Let me try to explain to you in more detail why I nominated the films and try to show you that it was not just a frivolous WP:JNN. I do agree with you that WP:Verifiability is not an issue here, especially after the new sources you found which clearly establish it. My only concern is with WP:Notability. The guidelines and recommendations you cited all seem to assume that the content is or is claimed to be notable (even if it is not properly sourced). WP:YFA stresses in point 4 that the subject must be notable, and that it should be sourced, after reading WP:INDAFD, I can understand the difficulty on finding reliable sources, and if there would have been an unsourced claim of notability in the articles, I would have tag them instead of nominating them, but in my opinion there is no such claim.

My assumption here is that a film is not automatically notable for having a notable actor like Vishnuvardhan in its cast, or for been a Kannada film.

Since I could not find substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG I looked at WP:MOVIE

The articles do not make any of the included notability claims, I could see no indication that:

it is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
- Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
- The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
- The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
- The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

If I made a mistake in the interpretation of this policies I do apologize, my intention is to help, not hinder the project, so I will thankfully accept any guidance you can give me.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for national archives and awards, the jury is still out. I am still looking to verify if "the film was selected for preservation in a national archive" or received "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"... but that OEN list contains more considerations. There is also "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," which is a consideration when giving thought to the involvement of the many Indian notables. I find it hard to believe that such films "never" received attention in the Kannada language. So since it had not yet been done, I've asked for assistance in sourcing from WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, Cinema of Karnataka and WikiProject Karnataka. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, if it is notable they should be able to show it, and if it so happens that any of those criteria you mention are met then I fully agree with you that it should be kept.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep a suitable stub which has gone from this to THIS. The article is not a policy violation and it serves the project and its readers to have it remain and be improved over time and through regular editing as Kannada editors are able. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 4 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. czar ⨹ 05:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Pajon[edit]

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

Musician who has played with notable bands, but has not "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases", per WP:MUSICBIO. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable are the two Grammy awards, the many individual production and writing credits in music and movies / television which show an extensive career. There are over a hundred credits in queue in the credit database for this year alone. If you're going to delete this page you might need to delete all of his peers and thousands of other pages that have less standing ( no Grammy awards or nominations ). I've included more information including his solo release from 2005. -- HafizHanif (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(UTCNote: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO BlueSalix (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must enjoy who you are so much. Are you going to chase down all of my efforts and call for deletion? --HafizHanif (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the rest of them also fail GNG, etc., yes, probably I will. BlueSalix (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes Wikipedia:Notability (music).

I'm sorry BlueSalix and LuckyLouie, I understand your desire to keep Wikipedia, the crowning achievement of the internet, clutter free. I should be more considerate in supporting my argument. So what are the qualifications for George Pajon as a notable music professional? Well, let's look at his credits and his productions and then look at the criterion at the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page.

-

I've included some points:

Under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" and in italics below the main 12 standards:

Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, UNLESS they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as SOLO RELEASES.

He released a solo album in 2005 which is still available for download in digital form AND also as a compact disc ( see cited sources ). His solo release qualifies him as a stand alone artist.

-

So now we can look at his work as a writer / composer, producer and musician with the B.E.P.'s, with Fergie and work with movie / television and his work with various solo artists.

-

Item 1: 1st subheading:

published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries ( please see documentary of his wedding and the news article of the same )( please also see the interview newspaper article from the Downey Patriot, that city's newspaper ) ( please also see the articles about the lawsuit filed against his money manager - who was the band's money manager and George's personal money manager ).

- Why would these independent sources care about this guy to write about him or shoot his wedding? Must be because he is notable. -

Item 8:

Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy ( please see Grammy awards, his writing and production credits, they are not for simply playing a guitar, session musicians do not get writing / production credit, only individuals who actually wrote or produced parts or main themes of a composition )

-

Item 10:

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show ( please see first and second sentence under "Movies and Television" ) He has worked individually outside of the band's capacity on several movies and that particular cable television cartoon show. Please see the various credits to see his name alone next to these credits.

-

You two and all others are free ( more like compelled ) to peruse the list of credits at the cited source to see for yourselves.

George qualifies as a "composer" according to his list of credits and the guidelines for musicians page, I could share that if need be but I think we can see what all this spells. --HafizHanif (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep May meet WP:BAND#6. Appears to meet the GNG with sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the solo release, the Grammy Awards for writing and production and some other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HafizHanif (talk • contribs) 06:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content about the discussion relisting
Comment Per Re-Listing Discussions it reads: "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the ((relist)) template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." User talk:Northamerica1000 please provide a clearer explanation other than repeating the prior per guidelines as to a THIRD go 'round. Looking at prior interactions with the two early dissenters, one could see they were trolling me from another editing battle prior to me putting this entry together. Haven't sufficient third-party independent sources been cited? The awards, solo releases, production and composer credits for professional work outside of being connected to a band and so on has shown substantial notoriety, hasn't it? Does there need to be a consensus to agree to these realities; the meeting of several qualifications instead of only one ( one being enough to qualify )? --HafizHanif (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] The discussion was relisted in hopes for a clearer consensus to be reached. There have only been four total participants to this discussion (including the nominator), and opinion is divided, despite your lengthy commentary for the article's retention. It is not uncommon for discussions with this type of circumstance and level of participation to be relisted twice. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] User talk:Northamerica1000, are entries only agreed upon by consensus regardless of their standing? That seems like an incompetent approach and not according to guidelines. Looking at the record, when the two dissenting votes were cast, the entry was in its infancy. Help me understand the logic of this procedure: the article is, in this case, of a notable musician, the notoriety is cited and at least three qualifications met. It stands on its own looking at the qualifications. The two dissenting 'votes' haven't commented further. Why is this particular entry being scrutinized? Does anyone care to actually look through the entry in question, or the history? I've notice that editors and admins respond better when links are used to support debate, perhaps due to laziness or group think. Instead of including the links, I added them in my initial response... and the debate has been found MOOT thereafter. This space isn't a democracy, so even with ten dissenting 'votes' against a factual and notable entry is of no consequence. So what is the factual hold up here? --HafizHanif (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content about the discussion relisting

Comment Per Re-Listing Discussions it reads:

"Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the ((relist)) template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient."

User talk:Northamerica1000 please provide a clearer explanation other than repeating the prior per guidelines as to a THIRD go 'round. Looking at prior interactions with the two early dissenters, one could see they were trolling me from another editing battle prior to me putting this entry together. Haven't sufficient third-party independent sources been cited? The awards, solo releases, production and composer credits for professional work outside of being connected to a band and so on has shown substantial notoriety, hasn't it? Does there need to be a consensus to agree to these realities; the meeting of several qualifications instead of only one ( one being enough to qualify )? --HafizHanif (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was relisted in hopes for a clearer consensus to be reached. There have only been four total participants to this discussion (including the nominator), and opinion is divided, despite your lengthy commentary for the article's retention. It is not uncommon for discussions with this type of circumstance and level of participation to be relisted twice. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Northamerica1000, are entries only agreed upon by consensus regardless of their standing? That seems like an incompetent approach and not according to guidelines. Looking at the record, when the two dissenting votes were cast, the entry was in its infancy. Help me understand the logic of this procedure: the article is, in this case, of a notable musician, the notoriety is cited and at least three qualifications met. It stands on its own looking at the qualifications. The two dissenting 'votes' haven't commented further. Why is this particular entry being scrutinized? Does anyone care to actually look through the entry in question, or the history? I've notice that editors and admins respond better when links are used to support debate, perhaps due to laziness or group think. Instead of including the links, I added them in my initial response... and the debate has been found MOOT thereafter. This space isn't a democracy, so even with ten dissenting 'votes' against a factual and notable entry is of no consequence. So what is the factual hold up here? --HafizHanif (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Okay, here is MORE substantial criteria made clear per WP:MUSICBIO [ A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets AT LEAST ONE of the following criteria ]:

item 1 Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. SEE [16]

item 4 Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. SEE [17]

item 5 Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). SEE [18]

item 8 Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. SEE [19] [20] [21]

item 10 Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. SEE [22] [23]

I have been gladly taking notes of the process and resistance to productivity on Wikipedia... doesn't encourage new folks from bringing more contributions... but actually frustrates them, discourages them and is very disheartening. --HafizHanif (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC and criteria #1 and #6 of WP:MUSICBIO, the latter (#6) per having been a lead guitarist for The Black Eyed Peas and association with other independently notable musicians. Source examples include: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 05:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juelz Terea[edit]

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

Simply put, a non-notable musician. Λeternus ^(talk) 22:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, clearly fails GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no RS to evidence notability. BethNaught (talk) 08:42, 10 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. czar ⨹ 15:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Garrett[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable individual. Has done a fair amount of coding, but other than a few name-drops in mainstream media I am not seeing anything to indicate notability (many of the current references are primary sources) Primefac (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I started this article in March after Garrett's receipt of the Free Software Award was announced. I felt that the award clearly pushed Garrett over the notability bar. That said, the nominator of this article also just sent the awards themselves to AfD so the award's notability is literally up for discussion. :) Several months ago, Garrett became a member of the Free Software Foundation board of directors (a fact not reflected in the biography) where I also serve. Because we serve on the same board, I think it's most proper if I do not !vote here. —mako ๛ 00:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this has no chance of being deleted. The article was created by an associate of the subject, and this associate sits on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. If I were a !voting man, I'd say "snow keep", and save the community the effort of debating this. Eddymason (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the notable award mentioned above there is also in-depth coverage in The Register [30] and Infoworld states that he is well-known [31]. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Garrett is a member of the Free Software Foundation board of directors [32], and has won a significant award. Further, the sources from I am One of Many show sufficient recognition to establish notability. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per IAOOM. Seems to be notable because of the award and in-depth coverage. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:20, 4 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.