< 5 December	7 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 per WP:SNOW. If this film ever gains coverage to merit an article it can be re-created, but this should not be done at any point before then. I'm also blocking Movie...huh? for the legal threats on JohnCD's page. She may not have made them herself and be relaying it on behalf of her boss, but the threat is very clearly made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FireFly (2012 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased training film. No sources supplied, no relevant ones found (this is not the same film as this Firefly (2012) in IMDB). This was deleted by PROD, but undeletion was requested by the article author (and star of the film), who explains the background on my talk page: "training film for trainee directors... it wasn't an 'actual' film... My boss instructed me to make this page for other trainee directors... ". This falls far short of WP:Notability (films). JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the true film (if it exists). VegasCasinoKid (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Please also note the the person who (apparently) wrote JohnCD the message is the movie's "star". Origamite^ⓣⓒ 03:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:N. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per WP:NOTFILM. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

purported cast

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

Delete as complete failure of WP:NF and worse and most important, a sad and total failure of WP:V. Searching for the film's purported cast finds nothing in relationship to this film. Even if granting this film it might have been created as training exercise, the topic fails WP:V. No writer. No director. No producer. And lacking verifiability, we have no reasonable place to redirect. It is not even being spoken of in social media, so I'm willing to suggest this is a speediable as WP:G3 "hoax" or WP:A11 "made up". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is an Evie-May Fernyhough who "does" martial arts (JKD, Kali, Wing Chun, Pentjak Silat, and Knife Defense) and runs her own teen fashion blog. She could be the film's lead, but the film is not even spoken of in her blog. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:43, 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. Unanimous consensus against existing as a stand-alone article. Consensus is less clear between delete or redirect. There are some good arguments against redirect, and it seems to me that this is an unlikely phrase for somebody to type into a search box, which means it's a poor choice for a redirect. So, delete seems to be the only remaining option. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poaching and Abuse of Dolphins in Japan[edit]

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

This is nothing more than a POV polemic that adds nothing to the already existing and more encylopedic Dolphin drive hunting and Taiji, Wakayama. The few references can not be called reliable and even the title is completely misleading. Dolphins are certainly not poached Peter Rehse (talk) 15:51, 29 November 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 November 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Dolphin drive hunting Duplicates the two articles mentioned by the nominator. Article is POV and there is nothing here worth merging. Title is a plausible redirect. Delete to kill the content history then redirect. Safiel (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is the major contributor's first article, and obviously they didn't understand the NPOV policy or heed the request not to create articles on existing topics. But we would have to go through the other articles carefully to say that this one contributes nothing. There are at least 2 cites to papers that don't appear in the other articles. POV is a rather weak reason for deletion, as it can be addressed on the Talk page. I'd suggest merging the parts that can be salvaged (even if they are small parts) to Taiji dolphin drive hunt. ~~Then delete this article, without a redirect.~~ Sorry, I'd like to clarify. I'm still new at this. I don't think the article title is worth keeping as a redirect. If we do merge anything, the history from this article should be moved along with the content, or this article left as a redirect, so that it has the history. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Dolphin drive hunting Although I agree with the general anti-hunting sentiment of the page, Wikipedia cannot host a page replete with statements such as "The method of capturing these beautiful creatures is truly horrifying" and "The Japanese Government also lied to the fisherman [sic]". I have read the page from top to bottom, and I agree with Safiel above that none of the content should be merged with the content of any other page. It is too biased. Syek88 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence "The method of capturing these beautiful creatures is truly horrifying." I don't see the other sentence "The Japanese Government also lied to the fisherman and told them that the reason they had to slaughter the dolphins was because they were eating all of the populations of fish that were sold in the markets." being a reason to delete the article. The article can be fixed later to follow the neutral point of view by indicating both the good reasons and the bad reasons for the Government to have lied. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be sensible, and possibly add sources and alternate views to the current main article. Whether it is merged or redirected, however, I'd strongly suggest move protection. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 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 19:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Dolphin drive hunting - Per Safiel and Syek88. NickCT (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Peter Rehse's comment - Title itself is quite POV. We should just delete. NickCT (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the title itself heavily POV and misleading. Do not think a REDIRECT is appropriate.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:NPOV in a way that the article would have to be rewritten anyway. Oppose redirect because the title is very POV. — kikichugirl ^inquire 05:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete it unless it can't be fixed to have a neutral point of view without being rewritten entirely. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Yorker[edit]

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

Website, with no evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for a website, we would expect coverage of it to be available online. A Google/news search, though, turns up no RS to speak of. Fails WP:NWEB. BethNaught (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the seven sources in the article only one is independant, and it doesn't contain significant coverage of the site. I can't find any other suitable references to show notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Nev1 (talk) 17:17, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni Freedhoff[edit]

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

Non notable. Does not meet WP:PROF -- h=5, highest citation figure 44 as one of a large group of authors. Does not meet NAUTHOR, only 2 real books, neither important. GNG depends on Does not meet GNG--refs are his own publications or author blurbs; nothing substantial found on Google. Promotional: gives sources for his books, lists all his lectures, one of them important. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There are several solid reasons to keep this wikipedia entry. Number one is that Yoni Freedhoff is an expert in Canada on non-surgical means of controlling diet and weight. This issue is not mundane nor trivial, but the issue of obesity and the epidemic of diabetes in the western world is one of the most important health issues facing the industrialized world. Therefore this man, as an expert on this crucial issue, should automatically be considered notable. Second, I am not sure if the other editors that contributed to this article in the intervening three months since the it was created will see the tag that it has been nominated for deletion, but the fact that several wiki editors have added and made changes to the article, improving it during the time it has been up should give weight to the notion that the article is wiki-worthy. Third, although there are at the moment not that many references, it appears that the references that are present are decent and solid and not self-serving blogs or other inadequate sources. If the article is allowed to remain, there is a high chance that editors will come to the article, adding more information from more reliable sources. As a service to people seeking information about controlling weight and obesity, this article on Yoni Freedhoff is most assuredly an important resource. ReachingtheStars (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Look, it's pretty basic. Wikipedia guidelines for notability don't have anything to say about being a so-called "expert" on obesity. They also don't take into consideration how many edits an article has. To meet the GNG, this guy has to have had multiple reliable sources discuss him---not his views---in detail that satisfies WP:SIGCOV. I haven't found any. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The context of the article is in terms of scientific expertise, for which WP:PROF would be the appropriate guideline. WoS shows 18 publications, one of which is a "letter to the editor" contribution signed by several dozen people. Of his science work, there are about 20 cumulative citations, which is consistent with his being an entry-level academic. Basically WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF and WP:GNG, and the article seems somewhat promotional to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Changed my mind — see below. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep Clearly a successful doctor, but not so much as to rise to encyclopedic notability. LaMona (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His latest book has been pretty widely reviewed, including by Scientific American and National Post. I know that a literal interpretation of WP:AUTHOR can be ridiculously easy to meet, but I've also found coverage in publications like the Los Angeles Times and Montreal Gazette. I think he certainly meets WP:GNG. I toned down the language about his works being available online and such. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the "review" in Scientific American is a blog post by an outsider blogger, not under the editorial auspices of SA. The Newsday review seems to be a RS and substantial, although behind a paywall so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. The LA Times has an article about him being un-invited to talk to an audience of food industry reps. [1]. The National Post review is substantial -- but of course about the book, not him. He seems to be interviewed frequently in Canadian sources, esp. Ottawa papers. He has written for US News and World Report (more than a handful of times), Psychology Today, and The Globe and Mail. I'm still seeing him as just a bit more than a successful doctor, but inching toward notability. Links: [2] [3] [4] [5] LaMona (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the mainstream media sources in the article are good enough for WP:AUTHOR/WP:GNG (an easier bar in this case than WP:PROF). Re the comment above by LaMona: there are enough other sources that I don't think the Scientific American one is necessary, but sources published as blogs under the imprimatur and editorial control of a major publisher can still be considered reliable, even thought they're not printed as a paper publication. If Scientific American allowed anyone to sign up and blog under their name, it would be different, but they don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 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, Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 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, MBisanz ^talk 19:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, NukeThePukes, and Agricola44, thoughts on the sources and GNG claim? czar ⨹ 19:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet convinced. I'm willing to give the barest benefit of the doubt to that LA Times link, even though it discusses the subject a good bit less than an incident concerning him. The other posted links are quotes from him, which is explicitly debarred from supporting the notability of a subject. Those headers make various claims about bestsellers and the like, but it strikes me that with a couple of you digging, no one's come up with actual proof of that. One maybe-possibly-good source doesn't do enough for me to change my vote, even though I get that this'll close as a no-consensus keep. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guy may be a publicity-seeking, self-promoter, and I have no idea if his diet theories hold water. However, that is not our job. Our job is to check out how many reliable sources think he's worth covering, and, fact is, his popular book got major reviews. His op-eds get published in big newspapers. He's got 20,000 twitter followers. He gets interviewed by the CBC [6] So he passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR ShulMaven (talk) 02:13, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Abaya[edit]

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

I don't think there's sufficient notability here. Ignoring how promotional it is, reviewing WP:MUSICBIO (it doesn't seem there's sufficient notability from the films or music videos or other projects), there's only been a single album from him by I believe a minor label. It seems like he's won 10 Billboard Awards but I don't know if that's a major award (and none of the billboard pages has his name anywhere). The only mention he has with his associated acts (JoAnne Lorenzana) is trivial. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 13 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 02:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm surprised that, with all he's allegedly done, that there are not better sources. Can this one be saved? Bearian (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've love to, believe me, but not being able to find any sources about any of this makes question what's going on here. If we strictly followed BLP policy and removed everything unsourced, there's almost nothing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just did a major overhaul of the article. I removed oodles of unsourced content. I did add a number of sources, but my confidence level that these sources, alone or in sum, meet our notability guidelines is pretty weak. It seems like there should be more reliable sources about this individual, but unfortunately, that doesn't mean there are. I'll let others look at the current version of the article and see what they think. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:37, 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, Michig (talk) 10:09, 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, MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY and WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 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 09:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rena J. Mosteirin[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, do not believe the page meets GNG.The subject has won some awards but I do not believe any of them are major enough to meet NAUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 12:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 12:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 12:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 12:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 12:49, 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 17:57, 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 18:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Next to no coverage in reliable independent sources, far short of meeting GNG or NAUTHOR. Also agree with nom that awards listed are insufficient to meet WP:BIO or any other notability guideline as they are not themselves notable. Everymorning talk to me 22:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Everymorning. Like to keep it for fans of her poetry, but almost no coverage. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:03, 12 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 00:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Fonseca[edit]

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

Completely unsourced BLP of a voice actor, the page is too old to be eligible for BLP prod. Unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 12:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 12:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 12:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 12:29, 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 17:56, 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 18:53, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Bahoda[edit]

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

I have no idea if this city is notable enough to be included. The editor's version copied the contents from Bareilly so the population and other information are likely wrong. It may be better to delete and start over. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:07, 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 11:08, 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 18:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typically I would say this is notable under WP:GEOLAND and put a source on it to affirm at least some of the data in the article. However, I can't find any sources to back up anything in the infobox, besides the fact that it exists. My !vote is conditional on if anyone can find any type of reliable source to back up where it is, any substantial information, etc. If someone can do that I'm a keep, but (as is looking likely) they cannot, then I will be a redirect to Bareilly. Deadbeef 00:01, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Big Brother[edit]

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

Online forum game based on the Big Brother TV series with no coverage in reliable sources. Previously redirected, it has been taken over by some editors playing a current version of the game. However, looking back at the history, no version of this has ever shown any notability. Whpq (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 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 10:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability or reliable sources whatsoever. StewdioMACK (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 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. (non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CrowdOptic, Inc.[edit]

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

This company doesn't sound at all notable. It also appears to be part of a paid-spamming campaign, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277 Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 05:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there seems to be a whole smegstorm going on with that paid editing thing, I found what I reckon is enough significant coverage in reliable sources for this company to pass WP:GNG: see Fortune, Techcrunch, Techcrunch again, Business Week, and Forbes. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dylan's sources. Passes GNG and even with the paid editing doesn't appear too spammy. Deadbeef 10:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 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 10:22, 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 18:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough coverage to establish notability.Vrac (talk) 22:17, 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 no consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Blazo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:BASE/N or WP:GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing changed since the last AfD. There is a significant article about him from more than 60 years ago already in the article. Sources are hard to find, which is not unexpected since he was active long before the internet, but some are online [7]. While most of these are not significant coverage, the fact that he played 300 games in the top minor leagues in Minneapolis before the minors became a strict development league indicates that more coverage is very likely. Rlendog (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Rlendog. Seriously guys, there's this great new resource called www.Google.com with a bunch of great features like a newspaper archive, a book archive and so much more. One might suggest you check it out every once in a while. Alex (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I haven't really found very much about Blazo in those resources. Maybe you could post some links? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 06:43, 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 10:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Took a look at the sources provided by rlendog and they all appear to be routine. Wizardman 03:43, 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 18:38, 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. (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 01:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better Portable Graphics[edit]

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

Procedural nomination of a declined speedy deletion. For the avoidance of doubt, I am neutral on this. SpinningSpark 18:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect to Fabrice Bellard. No indication of notability; article itself says it is "a new raster graphics file format." Trivialist (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough disk space at Wikimedia servers. Speedy keep 87.78.173.199 (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the worst speedy keep reason I've heard in a long while. And pretty stupid too, just because space is available, does not mean we should automatically allow a topic to have a page. All the possible topics are filtered through the criteria for inclusion. Speedy action is for topics that obviously do/do not meet the criteria. Or perhaps you believe that anyone who wants to promote their business or product for free should be allowed to do so? SpinningSpark 16:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: when Google announced the WebP image format on 30 Sep 2010, a wiki article was created one day later and has been kept and maintained since then. The Better Portable Graphics format is in many respects more notable than Google's WebP format, because of its unique characteristics:
- The BPG format uses a clever 'hack' to leverage hardware video decoders embedded in existing mobile phones and tablets, thus having a strong potential to replace JPEG. In comparison, Google's WebP is poorly supported in hardware and thus rarely used in practice to this day.
- The author of this image format, Fabrice Bellard, has a unique track record in software development: almost any open-source software project he announced grew into a widely used and supported software: FFmpeg, QEMU, LZEXE. 93.172.134.53 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be slowly gaining traction, and mentioned broadly outside of the author's own site. —Pengo 02:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to slashdot publication. --Yurik (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mentioned by other sites than the author's own, and the project goal in itself it very notable. If it flops terribly and is never mentioned with another word then the article can perhaps be deleted, no harm done but a few bytes on a Wikipedia server, but for now it has gained enough momentary fame that a Wikipedia article is reasonable. Thue (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LWN also found the effort notable enough for an article: https://lwn.net/Articles/625535/ . Thue (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Slashdot story, and notability & track record of the author. Vonfraginoff (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to Wikipedia to read about this format, and would have been surprised to not find an article about it. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a proposed replacement for JPEG, it has been covered in news articles[8][9][10][11] and is therefore notable. --IO Device (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Absolutely notable. Referenced in a lot of articles right now due to its nomination to replaced the jpeg format. --Monkeyjunky (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (on multiple grounds) with thanks to admin Diannaa (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Candy (book)[edit]

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

Book that doesn't indicate any notabilty. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more sources including the author's web page. Kleach (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleach: None of those links are usable. The author's site is a WP:PRIMARY source, meaning that it cannot show notability in any way. It can back up small details and in some instances could potentially help point in the direction of actual independent and reliable sources, but it cannot show notability. The same thing goes for the Google Books link- that's a link to the book itself, so it's primary. It does show that the book exists, but existing is not notability. (WP:ITEXISTS) Other than that you have a merchant site (Amazon), which is considered to be wholly inappropriate to add to Wikipedia in general because the main purpose of a merchant site is to sell you the product. Even if there are book reviews, there are instances of merchant sites manipulating reviews to cherry pick positive quotes- I've seen it happen. I also noted that you placed material taken directly from the Amazon page on the article. Please be aware that this is a copyright violation and is not permissible on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the existence of this article is highly related to a move request, see talk:Brain Candy for that discussion -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable reviews via a web search. I'm not the best at finding sources for books, so there may be some in "the normal places" so I'll refrain from !voting. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hobit, you didn't miss anything- there are no sources out there for this work other than a Publisher's Weekly review. That's not nearly enough to assert notability and since the page is almost entirely a copyright violation and extremely promotional, I've tagged it as a speedy deletion accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Florida Museum[edit]

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

Local museum with no evidence of notability, but prod removed on the absurd notion that "museums are notable", again without evidence. Created by the blocked sock of a disruptive user, but it's been edited too much to qualify for G5. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (dupplicated at 4 AFDs). This is one of four AFDs with commonality that they were created by one editor no longer active, were prodded by the deletion nominator, had prod removed by me, and have similarity in nomination statements (e.g. reference in one to "prod removed on the absurd notion that 'museums are notable', again without evidence", is referring to others in series). These are:

Requirements for wp:MULTIAFD may or may not be met. It is NOT wp:CANVASSING to note the commonality (neutral, not to talk pages, not selective, transparent). For efficiency, editors are invited to consider all four. --do ncr am 19:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous sources available, including: "HISTORICAL SOCIETY OPENS NEW MUSEUM" by KARLA SCHUSTER. Sun Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale] 03 Oct 1999: page 3B. Article explains that museum was opened by Fort Lauderdale Historical Society after spending "$500,000 and five years restoring the former New River Inn, built in 1905 in the shadow of the river and the FEC railroad tracks." 530 word article describing the museum that i find, with others, in a national newspapers database behind paywall.
It's a "living museum" with a "Fort Menendez at Old Florida Museum" attraction. Try also:

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

--do ncr am 19:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources indicated by doncram. The article has been changed enough from the created version of the disrupting banned editor. --Oakshade (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep museums are notable because they usually receive enough coverage to pass WP:ORG. That's true in this case with the sources noted above and a few others I found and will add. StarM 00:04, 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. Michig (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wissot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Puffy article on pollster that fails WP:GNG. Has run for public office, but that's insufficient under WP:POLITICIAN. After I nominated this for deletion, I learned that the article was previously deleted in an AfD and improperly re-created by an SPA. I have tagged for speedy deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per my nomination. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article starts off the same, but has extra information (which isn't surprising, considering it's seven years since the previous version). I can't see, however, that this version is much of an improvement. I'm leaving the speedy tag on, as while I'm not sure about speedying it, someone else might be able to make up their mind. Peridon (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The G4 has been declined. Peridon (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few brief mentions in the news, but certainly not enough to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Running for state assemblyman isn't enough to show notability. There's a definite lack of significant independent coverage. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rohlfing[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player, fails GNG and ATHLETE. Nothing non-routine on him. Wizardman 15:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 18:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable minor league player....William 12:52, 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. WP:CSD#G5 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dogstar Foundation[edit]

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

I've conducted a research on this company and I have not found enough reliable secondary sources to support their notability as explained in WP:NONPROFIT or WP:ORG. Most of the web pages that cite them are primary sources, non reliable blogs and forums, profile pages in social networks and animal-related websites, and fund-seeking pages.[12][13] [14] I have also found the common hints of a promotional activity, like the presence of fake Quora questions.[15] I have not found news about the organization from reliable sources except (maybe) for this article. The Wikipedia article itself does not help in finding additional reliable sources, because the current references point to the organization website, to an affiliated website and to an Huffington Post article that does not even cite them. Overall, I have not found any evidence of notability. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 14:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Fitness Program[edit]

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

No notability, no news mentions, etc. refs are for general research studies and not about the product. is an advertisement. CerealKillerYum (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very non-notable promotional article that appears to be its only purpose. Refs are also incredibly confusing to follow. BenLinus1214 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me it looks ~~like it might be a scam~~ rather dubious. I went to the BrainHQ website and looked at the abstracts of some of the "70 published studies" by "an international team of more than 100 top neuroscientists". For example, the abstract of one study on falling by seniors said "interventions to improve cognition and health might also be effective." BrainHQ's description of this study was "Study Description: This study found that poor BrainHQ performance is correlated with fall risk, and therefore BrainHQ is recommended to improve fall risk in older adults." Despite the fact that BrainHQ wasn't mentioned in the abstract. Or any of the other abstracts. The paper itself is behind a paywall so I can't tell for sure, but I saw no evidence that any of these studies had anything to do with BrainHQ. Delete per WP:PROMOTION. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:38, 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. (WP:SNOW). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ouen F.C.[edit]

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

Not a notable club - has never competed in an FA cup competition (Cup, Trophy, Amateur Cup or Vase) as per [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability this page/many other discussions] Kivo (talk) 12:32, 6 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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While not generally notable in an international setting, the club does participate at the highest level of the Jersey Football Association, and has previously participated in the Le Riche Cup, which is Jersey's equivalent of the FA Cup; this makes the club notable to Jersey. League Octopus wrote an essay a couple years ago advocating for a more accurate definition of club notability. While I understand it is not the official position of WP:FOOTY regarding club notability, there are a number of valid points brought up. Were we to write articles only on clubs that are notable in an international setting, then developing football programs would largely be ignored. Should the consensus be to delete this article, I propose that it be replaced with a redirect to Jersey Football Association#Affiliated Clubs and that the article could be replaced once the club meets WP:GNG or such standards as may be set at WP:FOOTY. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Keep Having done a little more research, I am ready to cast a !vote. I refer to club notability guidelines, which state "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." (emphasis in article) As St. Ouen plays at the highest level in the Jersey FA and has participated Jersey's national cup, it must be assumed that St. Ouen meets WP:N, thus the article should not be deleted. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 14:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In the footballing world, clubs from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man fall under the jurisdiction of the English FA, meaning notability comes in the form of having played in the FA Cup, Amateur Cup, Trophy or Vase. Jersey's main cup competition is not a national cup but the equivalent of a county senior cup such as the Derbyshire Senior Cup. Therefore the only clubs from the Crown Dependencies to be notable are Guernsey F.C. (Cup, Trophy and Vase), First Tower United F.C. (Vase), St. Martins AC F.C. (Vase), Vale Recreation F.C. (Vase) and Douglas High School Old Boys A.F.C. (Vase) Kivo (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jkudlick. And also because it fulfills WP:GNG as it is covered in numerous independent reliable sources (national newspapers, the BBC) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, Jkudlick is incorrect when he states that the Jersey FA Cup is a notable competition - it isn't. It is a County FA competition that has the same standing as the Derbyshire Senior Cup or the Sheffield & Hallamshire Senior Cup. Kivo (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is only relevant if one is arguing using WP:FOOTYN as rationale for keeping. I am arguing it fulfils WP:GNG through the independent coverage it has received. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a bit of a grey area due to the Channel Islands' constitutional status – they are in many ways sovereign states (as far as I am aware, the UK government exerts no control over them), and as such, clubs playing in the top division should be considered automatically notable (as should playing in the "national" cup). The fact that a small number of clubs from the Channel Islands have occasionally taken part in English cup competitions doesn't necessarily mean they should be considered English – it's more an issue of convenience and close links with England, much like Liechtenstein clubs playing in the Swiss leagues. But anyway, I think the issue is resolved in this case, as it's fairly obvious that the club passes the WP:GNG. Number 5 7 01:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Blatantly passes GNG. IJA (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass GNG. Nice to see an article on a minor football club with content from somewhere other than FCHD or its own website. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. Giant Snowman 13:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with Struway2. If more articles about smaller clubs were as good we would probably have less strict (and silly) notability standards.Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 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 redirect to Pakistani American#Military. I am closing as a redirect rather than delete mostly to preserve the editing history. There were some calls for merge (but not a lot of consensus on where to) so I think this is a reasonable close. Material here can thus be merged to other articles. Should the material at Pakistani American#Military become too lengthy I would suggest that spinning out to a list (eg List of military Pakistani Americans) may be more acceptable than an article that on a subject that cannot be found in reliable sources. SpinningSpark 12:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Pakistani Americans[edit]

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

As a subject, it does not appear to pass WP:GNG, therefore I am recommending that this article be deleted. While individual Pakistani American servicemembers may be notable per WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER, as a subject, this does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a series of military history articles on minority groups. The article is meant to discuss the contributions of Pakistani Americans in the military and sources are given. There are notable service members of Pakistani descent eg. Ali S. Khan. There are articles on military histories of various ethnic and religious groups eg. Military history of Sikh Americans, Military history of African Americans, Military history of Jewish Americans, Military history of Buddhist Americans, Military history of Asian Americans etc.. Pakistanis may be few in number, but they are one of the major groups of Muslim Americans and Asian Americans and some coverage should be given on them too. At the very least, there should be some article on the military history of Muslim Americans, as I can't find any coverage on their military contribution. Mar4d (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a rich history of segregation in the US Service branches, influenced by a still richer history of inequality and segregation across the US as a whole, however the article doesn't seem to encompass any of this over reaching material, preferring instead to focus on the lives of a limited number of Pakistani military service members who could be covered in individual articles here. Without a general discussion on the topic, the article serves no purpose in its current form, and therefore should be deleted. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They make up a tiny portion of the US armed forces (125 naturalized citizens as of 2008, according to the article itself), and only one appears to have an article: Ali S. Khan. The rest mentioned don't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (via Delsort WP Pak) Pakistani Americans are notable and that article is quote lengthy IMO. So it is not just the notability of this specific topic we have to take in consideration here (though it is also present), but additionally, we also consider that this is a child article of that to avoid extra lengthy articles. The same article as it is can not cover content in this one as well. It is wikipedia norm to expand into child articles and goes as per WP:MOS. As far as the notability is concerned, it does seem to be a part of the series noted above but incase there is no conesnses to keep it, it is also a candidate for 'move and expand' to History of Pakistani Americans. But then again, just because no body did the effort to create that article doesn't mean that it will not expand again and require the creation of this article yet again; the article should be given a chance to survive independently on those basis as well as some one will likely create the redlinked article. Pakistan is an undercovered topic and the few editors at WP Pak usually go by creating what interests them most. The topic area expands into new articles haphazardly but the net result is always constructive. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Child article? How is this a sub-article? Of what article? It appears to have been created independent of any article it maybe related to.

Has there been any books written about the subject? None that I have found.

Even in books about minorities in the United States military, such as Alexander M. Bielakowski Ph.D. (11 January 2013). Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the U.S. Military: An Encyclopedia [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-59884-428-3., there is no mention of Pakistani American military history.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside LtCol Asad Khan (USMC, ret.), may have sufficient reliable sources about him to pass WP:GNG (though he appears to fail WP:SOLDIER):

Times, 2002

PBS, 2010

Marine Corps Times, 2013

U.S. Marines in Afghanistan, 2001-2002: From the Sea

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT (and summarize) to Military history of Asian Americans since Pakistani Americans are currently classified as Asian Americans by the United States Census Bureau. Ethnically, they fit the definition of Asian American. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that would you also redirect Pakistani Americans to that Asian Americans? It's an unreasonable idea and USCB is US point of view. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani American, as an ethnicity within the Asian American racial categorization by the OBM & USCB, would (& does) have a stand alone article. That article is not in question at this AfD, as it has received significant coverage, such as:

Stacy Taus-Bolstad (30 December 2005). Pakistanis in America. Lerner Publications. ISBN 978-0-8225-4872-0.

However, just because Pakistani American is a notable subject, does not mean that the subject of this AfD is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, I would not redirect Pakistani Americans to Asian Americans and the reason for that there's more than 300,000 Pakistanis in U.S and its a notable subject (It can be considered as a sub-article of Asian Americans article). On the other hand, I think it would be correct to #REDIRECT Military history of Pakistani Americans to Pakistani Americans -(not the old view-to asian americans)-. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Pakistani Americans.... Check it out guys Pakistani American#Notable contributions. Its already there in Pakistani Americans which a suitable place for it to be. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote twice. And you shouldn't be merging anything from this article to that article yet, until there's a decision here. That's what this WP:AFD is for. Mar4d (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine...it wasnt meant for merging etc But I just took info from the article and added it to Pakistani Americans military contribution...which should have been there in the first place. This article could be deleted or anything else etc... BTW I had a change of view (not voting twice).

Delete as non-notable as individuals and as a group and not really notable to be added to Pakistani American either. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly move or merge as suggested. While this is clearly a notable topic, it may be best served by inclusion with a more general overview. Generic fixes are not meant to be debated at AfD. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, how is this a "clearly notable topic"? Where are the reliable sources that give significant coverage of the subject?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The article is about Americans of Pakistani descent who have served in the American military. It consists of a list of obituariues for those killed in service; and some statistics which show the number of people serving to be NN. We really do not need this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 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, Sam Walton (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Expand to Military History of Muslim Americans. That topic has clearly received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article cites LA Times, NY Times, and Wash Post articles on the wider subject of Muslims in the military. Vrac (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable intersection of characteristics. Article irredeemably violates WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While the concerns about the COI/paid editing that lead to article creation can be easily resolved through promo-cleanup, there are legitimate arguments both for deletion and keeping, due to different weight attributed to sources and analysis against WP:CORPDEPTH. Czar and Satellizer have found more than enough sources to cement their argument, and are experienced with VG-AfDs, so their opinion to keep seems very strong, but it would be irresponsible for me to dismiss Widefox/DGG's argument that the sources presented lack the depth necessary for the subject to be notable. So I am closing as no consensus for now, without prejudice towards renomination after improvements/expansion based on the sources unearthed in the AfD if the subject's notability is still in question then. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyu Media[edit]

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

sources are primary or product announcements. Fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH (created by serial SPAMMER, promo only account) Widefox; talk 12:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I created this article for a client on Elance.com who wanted his own legitimate article on Wikipedia. By the way, I am not a serial spammer, I was the doing the same for the links which were removed from articles on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TORR (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you have not disclosed your paid editing anywhere until now. That is against our Terms of Use. Secondly, being paid to write the article has no bearing on the lack of notability. Widefox; talk 15:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak sources, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, promotional, violates TOU. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the company has received coverage and mentions in Polygon, Kotaku, Siliconera, Technology Tell, Capsule Computers and Hardcore Gamer. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those doesn't fall foul of WP:CORPDEPTH ? Technology Tell Capsule Computers Hardcore Gamer do for instance (regular product announcement). Widefox; talk 11:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per CORPDEPTH itself, "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." There's multiple independent sources here. BTW, the Polygon article is a bit more in depth, and Siliconera has multiple articles featuring the company. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems with that argument: 1. quoting the full text reveals "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." 2. The sources (I checked) are categorised as trivial at CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. And even if what you said were to be true, the other sources I stated above do contain more than just "trivial or incidental coverage." Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Differ with the quote 1., or differ categorising the sources 2.? 1. is quoted, and 2. others agree on, so it would help if you could reason your case. Widefox; talk 11:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what you mean, but I will add that all the sources I proposed discuss the developer or their games in some detail, so, like Czar says, they are not "product announcements" as you claim. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed fail WP:CORPDEPTH.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 10:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one reliable source, either on the page or that I can find. LaMona (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. All the sources proposed here are reliable as per WP:VG/RS. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Blow it up if you don't like what's there, but save for Capsule (which is new to me), I know all of Satellizer's sources were vetted at WP:VG/RS. A few seem more about Yatagarasu than about the company, but the correct procedure here is to merge that up a level to the developer until it can carry its own weight. Every one of the sources discusses products of the company, so regardless of the CORP arguments, the article topic passes the other avenue to prove notability: the general notability guideline with sigcov in vetted WPVG sources. czar ⨹ 23:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't WP:ILIKE / don't. A bunch of product announcements don't make a notable company, and yeah some of the products may be notable but that doesn't mean it is per WP:INHERITED. Sources about the company have yet to be produced. Widefox; talk 23:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nom was about the article's current promotional state, so I said blow it up if you don't like that—has nothing to do with your link. As for the topic itself, it has sources (Satellizer's, above) that were not incorporated into the article. Nyu is a company that received coverage for making games. The articles are more about the actions of the company than individual games. (I'll add this one to the pile.) There's enough vetted coverage for there to be enough content for an article on the company and for this AfD to be a clear keep. czar ⨹ 00:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I personally believe we should be more thorough, and quicker to react to paid editing that violates the TOU, my nom clearly states this should be taken on it's merits - so far there's a lack of sources on the company (there's plenty of product announcements). this one - another product announcement. Piling up PR doesn't help me see if it is, in fact, notable. Widefox; talk 01:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Satellizer sources, the ones you call "PR", are from vetted, reliable sources and are in no way press releases. If you mean to say they have a promotional tone, then your disagreement is with the tone of video game reporting as a whole. No different for this article than for any other. I have nothing else to add here without repeating myself, so I'm bowing out czar ⨹ 03:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly trivial company. No notable games. A company producing creative products that produces no notable product cannot possibly be notable--especially inb a field we cover so intensively as computer games. And the firm is essentially trivial in other respects: " a core staff of four people, spread over London, San Francisco and Osaka," almost all the product announcements are for future projects. This article illustrates the defects of paid editing--nobody else would conceivably write this article except someone with coi. I wouldn't automatically reject all such articles--an actually notable company might be foolish enough to higher a paid editor on Elance, and it is even conceivable that they might do a satisfactory job. But in this case, not even the best editor could produce a satisfactory article, as there;s nothing to work with. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More sources. This isn't about the impact of the indeed small firm by a topic-specific guideline, but its coverage in vetted media—in addition to the above:

http://www.shacknews.com/article/81568/supercharged-robot-vulkaiser-and-more-japanese-indies-coming-via-nyu

http://indiegames.com/2011/11/six_japanese_games_incoming_lo.html [16]

http://indiegames.com/2011/12/nyu_media_capcom_to_publish_lo.html

http://indiegames.com/2012/02/nyu_media_capcom_to_launch_exc.html

http://indiegames.com/2012/08/nyu_media_reveals_second_wave_.html

http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2014/01/22/side-scrolling-shooter-gigantic-army-coming-on-february-5th/71018/ ("Publisher Nyu Media has been on the forefront of bringing Japanese doujin to English-speaking gamers ...")

And plenty more coverage of stories already noted above, e.g., [17]

If you do a custom Google search on the VG/RS page linked above, you'll find plenty more coverage of the company and its products—more than enough to sustain an article, nevertheless a satisfactory one, and nothing requiring Herculean effort. As for the announcements being for future projects—that's (1) the nature of the field's reporting, and (2) only the links you saw above. There is plenty of coverage once the games came out—see the aforementioned custom Google search. The location or size of the firm has no bearing on how it's covered, and no one has actually looked into whether its individual games are notable—they're from a niche Japanese genre and being localized into English. We haven't even begun on the Japanese sources. Mind you, this isn't even my niche, but just look at the amount of coverage! Would think that given recent discussion about my expertise in matters like this, you'd have a little more faith in my research. czar ⨹ 03:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 15:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Michelle Pesando[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, making no claim of notability that would get her over WP:WRITER. The initial strongest claim of notability, that she was "the first transgender nun in the Roman Catholic church", turned out to be a misreading of the source — and as things stand now, the article is sourced to a mixture of primary sources and media coverage exclusively local to her own hometown (and it took six full months for somebody to notice that the original creator had also misread those sources and misrepresented what hometown she's actually from, which says something about how much traffic this article is actually generating.) Which means all we've got to work with here for notability purposes is "writer who exists", with not a shred of evidence that she's garnered broad enough attention to satisfy WP:GNG. In addition, there are WP:BLP problems if you have to speculate about a "cryptic message" on social media, and if it is "unknown" whether she's actively promoting the book or not. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the few local news items, I also found this, but I don't feel there is enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I recall encountering a number of articles about TMP online, though the majority seemed to be in the languages of largely-Catholic nations (French, Italian, etc., especially if one includes WordPress articles such as this one) and they were all from the summer. As for traffic, this Wikipedia article only seems to have been garnering ~10 views per day, and if she really is going to become a nun, I'm not sure if TMP would even want that much attention. It was an LGBT-interest thing that got her an article in the first place, so take that however you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.81.5 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevance. Furthermore, most of the media reception including blog articles as the one linked above turned out to be misinterpretations of the source, too.--Turris Davidica (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 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 delete. Wifione ^Message 15:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happening Happy Hippy Party[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2009. Nothing suggests any notability either in "real life" or for Wikipedia policy. Not notable by any measurement, in short, and a political party with no cultural significance. doktorb _words^deeds 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 09:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 09:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 09:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a real political party, but rather a defunct non-notable website. Carrite (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS-based evidence that the party actually exists, much less passes WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:04, 12 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 ⨹ 08:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Hutton[edit]

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

Single-sourced article about a journalist notable only as news director of a single radio station in a single media market. This is an exclusively local role which is not sufficient to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST, and the sourcing here is not nearly enough to get him over WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely local coverage, no indication of notability as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes no real claim of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VENA[edit]

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

I attempted to have this "speedied" but this was declined as the article makes a claim of signifance although I can't see what it is. As far as I can tell, this band is not notable. An unsubstantiated claim to have been nominated as the "Best Latin Live in Italy" doesn't cut it. Bikeroo (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Nominator. There is not claim of significance nor is there any notability. VViking_TalkEdits 17:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Claims of a number-one song and nominations can't be verified. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:57, 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 WP:BOLDly redirected to Nick Jonas. (non-admin closure) ansh666 21:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe in You (Nick Jonas song)[edit]

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

This is an article about a non-notable song. Also poorly constructed non-single MaranoFan (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 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 Speedy close. Wrong venue. Would need to go to WP:FfD if a controversial deletion. Michig (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Terminator genisys.jpg[edit]

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

Another user uploaded a new version of the poster as a separate :File instead of clicking "Upload a new version of this :File", rendering this File useless. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note - I've disabled both images from showing hence all the malformed crap above as it all looks odd on the log, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:37, 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl R. Byoir[edit]

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

Article has the appearance of being well-sourced, but all the citations are either not accessible, or broken links. This would not ordinarily be a problem, except the article includes false claims, like Byoir being one of the founding fathers of PR (I wrote the article on History of Public Relations and there are quite a few that fight for this title, but Byoir is not one of them). If he was genuinely notable for having a role in the history of public relations, there should be something in a Google Books search, which contains a large volume of books on the subject. CorporateM (Talk) 04:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He receives significant coverage in the Historical Dictionary of American Propaganda, which supports many of the claims in the article, including that he ran "one of the largest public relations firms in the United States". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328. Also of note, he has a full bio in Encyclopedia Britannica [18] and the Encyclopedia Judaica pairs Byoir with Edward Bernays as two former Committee on Public Information workers who "became major forces in raising public relations to a profession". [19] Here's his obit in the Chicago Tribune [20] --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: Per the above. CorporateM (Talk) 02:54, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Bloom[edit]

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

Despite having a large number of references, I have found none that are actually acceptable/verify notability. CorporateM (Talk) 03:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ When we have an article containing a promotional line like "With the success of these artists under her wing, her boss gave her the nod to start her own subsidiary record label, called 3-2-1", extreme skepticism is justified. Nominator is correct. The many references in the article do not meet our standards for reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources have now been identified, and I thank those who have done so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have not analyzed this enough to ascertain notability, but I'd like to mention that this recent deletion seems to contain some assertions of notability, and I'd like to see it reinstated/reverted in order to more fully analyze the article subject. Also, I'm not personally convinced of the photograph's copyright release (or rather lack thereof). It says "It was sent to me personally by the subject", but even though it has an OTRS ticket, there's no public indication who took the photo or whether they released it, which is a bit absurd because it is under a license that requires attribution. OK, I guess "Dion Kruczek" took the photo; striking my comment under the presumption that Dion Kruczek submitted a release of the photo. Softlavender (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reasons for the !deletes are the promotional tone and lack of good refs. Well, when we encounter such an article, shouldn't we just remove the promo content and find more refs. If no refs can be found, then AfD, right? A cursory search finds some [21][22][23][24][25] and maybe there are more. My search engine options are limited because google is blocked here. Might there be good refs out there? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of those is overtly a press release, and the others appear to me to be based largely on press releases. I am reluctant to accept interviews as evidence of notability. I wish there was something more solid. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved this to the mainspace on behalf of another (an IRC user, I think). It was quite a while ago, but it must have passed GNG in my eyes at that time. In fact, a couple of the refs I show above, used to be in the article, but were subsequently removed. Maybe they were not so good. Anyway, I am not biased, and will let the chips fall as they may. I do not defend articles because I started them. I have !voted deleted on a few of my own, and have even nommed a few of my own. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is a notable music industry businesswoman and publicity agent associated with the labels Sub Verse Music, Zero Hour, TVT Records, and The Bloom Effect. She's worked in the music industry for almost two decades and now focuses on social media. BBC America profiled her last year[26] and the trade magazines mention her in spades. Her accomplishments are listed on her website.[27] In October 2006, she was featured in the print edition of Rolling Out magazine. In 2007, the National Association of Record Industry Professionals awarded her the "Best of the Biz" in the category of "Top Consultant / Strategist".[28]. In 2009, her biography was profiled by writer Thembisa Mshaka in the book Put Your Dreams First.[29] Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not at the Russell Simmons level (she only started ~20 years ago), but clearly a recognized leader in the industry since by at least the mid-2000s. Among other things, articles/coverage on her in BBC America, Soul Train, Soul Train, Soul Tracks, Rolling Out, Book(s): [30], [31]; at least four mentions as an industry leader in Billboard since 2006, plus listed as one of Billboard's list of Twitter accounts to follow; extensive mention of her in the trades since 1995; winner of NARIP award; Judge of the Independent Music Awards [32]; etc. Wiki article needs help but subject clearly meets notability requirements. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above and more sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . The cited sources are IMO a bit thin on being reliable. For BLPs I generally look for articles in the established press (i.e. print media), and interview based content is a big no no. However, the claims to notability are genuine, the article is not A7 prone, and the BBC source inspires confidence, so I'll give this subject the benefit of the doubt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article a bit with some more sources, including the BBC one. There is an element of puffery, but I get the impression sources approached her rather than vice versa and she has done things significant enough to warrant an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:18, 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 delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McDade[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer, fails GNG and ATHLETE. The sources I'm seeing are just run-of-the-mill, nothing worthy of a standalone article. Wizardman 03:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another non-notable minor league baseball player. Coverage is run of the mill. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is routine, fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 17:56, 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 (non-admin closure, nomination withdrawn). Nsk92 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven salaita[edit]

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

I think this article might be a content fork. The page Steven Salaita exists but it is a redirect to a subsection of UIUC. Salaita might meet the requirements for a standalone article, but Steven salaita should probably redirect to Steven Salaita instead of existing as a wholly different article. Breadblade (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before this article was created, if you typed in "Steven Salaita" it only brought you to a sub-section discussion under "University of Illinois Champaigne-Urbana." But Salaita is notable for his publications independent of the UIUC controversy, and the controversy has morphed into one of the limits of academic freedom in general. It's no longer simply an employment contract issue with one employee and one university, but a larger one. User:VanEman — Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- and fix this ridiculous anomaly where the properly written article name is a redirect and the one with a no-capital surname is the standalone article. Salaita does meet WP:PROF and it would be silly not to have an article on him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support this outcome, so long as the anomaly itself is fixed. Breadblade (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection it seems like someone changed the old Steven Salaita redirect so that it now redirects to Steven salaita. Is there a way to switch that around? The capitalization is now wrong. Breadblade (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:VanEman did not follow the correct WP:EDRED procedure for converting a redirect into an article an instead created an extra page titled "Steven salaita". Breadblade: if you are willing to withdraw this AfD nomination, I'll convert the current "Steven Salaita" redirect to an article and convert the "Steven salaita" page to a redirect pointing to the "Steven Salaita" article, and then do a non-admin closure of this AfD. Please indicate here whether this option is OK by you. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. I will withdraw this nomination if you are able to apply this fix. Breadblade (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good, let me give it a try. Nsk92 (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have fixed the redirects and will do a NAC of this AfD shortly. Nsk92 (talk) 02:01, 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 merge all to Splint (medicine). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ankle stirrup[edit]

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

This article, as well as the six listed below, all violate WP:NOTDIC as they all have just one sentence defining what they are used for. Since their creation, they have been redirected to Splint (medicine), which lists them all, or proposed for deletion, but their creator keeps restoring them. Unless someone can find substantial history behind each of them or something like that, there is no reason what-so-ever to have articles on every single type of splint that exists. I also noticed that the "See Also" section of Splint (medicine) has articles that can possibly be merged with that article, but will leave that for another discussion.

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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them all into Splint, per WP:DICTIONARY. The one sentence in each article seems to be accurate enough. Even if very basic -- all in the form "X is a splint to immobilize Y to prevent injury." Copy that sentence with its source (where the actual information is) into Splint#Commonly used splints, to make it a list of descriptions instead of a list of links, and then convert these articles into redirects. Also someone should contact the author to explain why this is being done and get him to stop the edit warring. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them to Splint (medicine). I had noticed this cluster of articles earlier; thanks to Ranger for definitively dealing with them. If the author keeps recreating them as articles, we might consider protecting the redirects. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Splint (medicine) per MelanieN. Different types of splint would be much better discussed together in one article. --Michig (talk) 08:11, 13 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 for multiple reasons (WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Alpha Phi[edit]

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

Non-notable club--a Greek organization with a half a dozen chapters? Also, unverified, promotional in tone, and very much a directory: one could consider nominating this for speedy deletion, as promotional or as A7. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not only is it promotional and an A7 candidate, but it's also a copyright violation from this site. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A10 (duplicates an existing topic). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Importance of Language[edit]

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

This is a personal essay. Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best this just comes across like someone posting their homework on Wikipedia. (If this is the case, please direct your professor to WP:EDUN!) At worst it's someone using Wikipedia as a personal blog. Either way, it just doesn't belong on Wikipedia and is largely a redundant, WP:OR version of English as a second or foreign language, as this is fairly English-centric. It might even be speedyable as such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Asimov Presents The Golden Years of Science Fiction, Fifth Series[edit]

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

One of a batch of thirty-one tiny stubs about non-notable science fiction anthologies put together by a notable man who did over 500 books before his death. Don't know of any quick way to encompass all 31 in this one AfD; but this is as good an example as any. Orange Mike | Talk 00:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:AFD#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion - you're going to need to list the pages here and put the appropriate template on those pages pointing them here. Artw (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I don't have an hour to devote to doing all this cut-and-paste; but I do want to sincerely thank you for the link to the instructions, Art. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - we can't really do this AFD for those articles then. Artw (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to suggest a redirect to Asimov's bibliography, but we have two of them: chronological and alphabetical. This honestly doesn't seem like it'd be a particularly searchable term, considering that this isn't a new work in and of itself but actually a new packaging of pre-existing works- plus a lot of his works are repackaged into anthologies, so I don't honestly see where it'd be all that helpful to have a redirect that goes to a long list of books. It's not exactly like in the instances where an author only has about 5-30 works and it'd make sense to have a redirect to their bibliography. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even I find this of no interest. If we're going to be adding pages for book repackaging we'll end up disappearing up our own fundamentals. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the linked article only. Artw (talk) 21:56, 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.