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 procedural keep. Before coming to AfD, due diligence includes checking whether the article has gone through deletion processes. Please continue relevant discussion on the article's talk page. czar ⨹ 03:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Freedonia[edit]

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

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

This is obviously a non-imaginative student prank from several years ago, and only revived recently. This is not notable. Dinkytown talk 22:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep. This article was kept at an October 2014 AfD (as well as twice before that), and the nominator has not stated any reason why we should be revisiting that conclusion just a couple of months later. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - the last discussion was so recent that any disagreement with the result should be raised at WP:DRV. Immediate re-nomination is disruptive. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - I was gonna close myself but I've got far more important things to deal with at the moment than an unhappy nominator!, Anyway back on topic - This was only nominated a month ago and generally should've been renominated 3-4 months later ...., Anyway plenty of sources - passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - but for the Record - I didn't know that this article was nominated for deletion, not only so soon, but that it was nominated at all - so that was my mistake. However, I still maintain that this article should be deleted as its still not notable per WP:NOTE.

- The original source of it's start were also wholly unreliable, namely that a riot broke out with the result of one person killed in Somalia. This is mentioned in no other sources. I could go on, but only to cite previous complaints against this article.

- If this article is going to be sustained, then it should be re-written into a better article. Four nominations for deletions should say something about the quality of the article. Dinkytown talk 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to vote twice - your nomination is enough. Previous nominations are detailed on the talk page, where you commented immediately prior to starting this nomination. I appreciate that you might not have seen those but then the sensible things would be to withdraw this once you had realised you made a mistake. The "previous complaints against this article" have been raised and addressed. The place to address the actual closure is at WP:DRV. That the article needs to be re-written is not argument for deletion. Suggest you withdraw this. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per procedure. Give it some time before nominating this article for deletion again.--TMD Talk Page. 01:56, 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 merge to Quick Lane Bowl. Rounded to merge; consensus at the target is obviously free to determine how much, if any, of the source is to be integrated. slakr^\ talk / 09:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quick Lane Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of Quick Lane Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. BenLinus1214 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Quick Lane Bowl. This hasn't even had its first game yet, so the problem with the standalone list is that there simply isn't any content to justify it yet. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...note that by "merge", I don't mean these tables need to be included there, just that the fact of who is broadcasting this should be noted in the main article. Shouldn't take any more than a single sentence. postdlf (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hasn't even been played yet, and barring a major scandal shutting down ESPN or a network like NBCSN deciding to buy the rights to this game somehow, this probably won't be seen anywhere but ESPN throughout its entire upcoming history. Also, I don't know a radio station that has ever broadcast these 'national' bowl game broadcasts unless it involves ESPN Radio and the playoff format du jour of the moment; Rutgers and NC will send their guys to broadcast it, and most everyone will listen to either of those broadcasts. Nate • (chatter) 23:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Quick Lane Bowl. Even if this bowl was 50 years old, this information belongs in the main article, not a standalone one. IMO, all of these "List of <bowl> broadcasters" articles should be merged. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The game has not yet even been played. There are no sources to suggest that the non-existent broadcasters of a yet-to-be-played bowl game passes WP:GNG or any other potentially applicable standard. If and when the game is played and broadcast, the identities of the broadcasters could possibly be included in the article(s) about the individual games, but this stand-alone list doesn't pass muster. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL and Cbl62's explanation. This bowl game is not only non-notable, it's non-existent, and the list of future broadcasters is pure conjecture. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't think anyone was claiming the Quick Lane Bowl itself is not notable; note that the parent article is not nominated here, and I think it would be a tough sell to delete it as it clearly passes GNG and it's significant as a college football bowl game. Note also that the first game is to be played December 26, 2014, and it's simply not credible to believe that a broadcaster hasn't been verifiably lined up a mere two weeks in advance (and, indeed, some quick googling confirms it's been scheduled to air on ESPN at least since August). CRYSTAL, therefore, does not apply here. The problem instead is we have a one-item list that simply has no reason to exist separately from the parent article. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are, of course, correct with regard to the present notability of the scheduled bowl game. A sloppy and mistaken vote and rationale on my part; I have struck my !vote and comment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your good example. It's not often enough that people correct or retract themselves at AFD rather than just digging in their heels. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Better to recant than look like a complete idiot. I won't be commenting further in this discussion, but I would be satisfied with either a delete or merge, which, given the scarcity of noteworthy content, amounts to the same thing. As X96lee15 said above, this whole category of lists deserves scrutiny at AfD. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:50, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Professional Boxing Federation[edit]

World Professional Boxing Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable boxing organization - originally deleted after AfD in September 2014 and recreated/deleted many times. Finally speedy was declined because of added references. New references don't show notability for this minor boxing organization and as before it is telling that very few of its championship slots are filled. There is a clear and admitted COI (employee) with the persistant re-creations. Also it is worth noting that this included a declined Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#World Professional Boxing Federation. Frankly this should have been salted.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minor boxing organization with no indication of notability and no significant independent coverage--just routine sports reporting and primary sources.Mdtemp (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minor boxing organization with only routine sports reporting for coverage. It's so minor that most of its titles are vacant. Papaursa (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails the policy of verifiability (WP:V). Presumably prejudice against recreation / drafting should reliable sources be added. slakr^\ talk / 09:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pijanets Republic[edit]

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

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

Google search returns no hits for "Pijanets Republic" [1], no hits for "REPUBLIC OF PIJANETS" [2], nor for "REPUBLIC OF PIJANEc" [3]. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Is this a misspelling? Fails WP:V. NickCT (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I fixed it. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:V and is completely unsourced. BenLinus1214 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely unverified.--TMD Talk Page. 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I have just spent a few minutes on formatting the text to make it readable. This appears to be about a "state" created during a rebellion in 1878 that lasted barely two months. If this happened at all, it is better treated as an incident in the war of which it was part or of the hisotry of the tonw or village where it took place. A state with an army of 150 men hardly soundfs notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify, for sourcing and a subsequent decision on how and where to use verified content. I can find one apparently reliable source in English referring to, and apparently discussing in some detail, these events as the Pijanec uprising - unfortunately, only snippets are visible through GBooks, though even these could be used for sourcing a couple of statements in the article. Judging from these and a few almost certainly unreliable sources (in Wikipedia terms), it seems to have been a temporarily successful attempt by survivors of the Razlovtsi insurrection, including Dimitar Popgeorgiev and Ilyo Voyvoda, to liberate a smallish area in present-day eastern Macedonia (and possibly straddling the current Macedonian/Bulgarian border) in the immediate aftermath of Turkish defeat in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–78). The Russian military support that the insurgents were counting on never arrived, but the Turks came back in after a couple of months. A few months later, after the Treaty of Berlin restored present-day Macedonia and southern Bulgaria to Ottoman rule, some of the uprising's leaders helped organise the Kresna–Razlog Uprising which, while apparently mainly centred in present-day southern Bulgaria, seems also to have involved parts of eastern Macedonia. While the Pijanec uprising seems to have got rather less notice than either its predecessor or successor uprisings, it still looks as if it has enough importance to get at least a mention in related articles and that further sources in Macedonian (and possibly Bulgarian) would be worth looking for. PWilkinson (talk) 15:12, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Wonders of Lebanon[edit]

Seven Wonders of Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks like original research. There are no sources that describe the "Seven Wonders of Lebanon". [4] Vanjagenije (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To my surprise I found no sources at all, either in English or in Arabic. This does seem to be a pure case of WP:OR, perhaps with a view to WP:ADVertising. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Clearly original research or some sort of promotional article. BenLinus1214 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Quickenden[edit]

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

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

Quickenden's football career does not meet WP:FOOTY and, given his age, is very unlikely to ever meet it (name me one other 26 year old who has played in the premier league for the first time at 26). He obviously does not meet the notability guidelines for his X Factor appearances, therefore it is a question of whether or not placing in I'm a Celebrity qualifies him for a Wikipedia article. I would say it doesn't. Launchballer 19:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Several, actually (Jamie Vardy was 27), but that's not the most important thing. Jake isn't the first X Factor contestant to go on another reality show afterwards (Stacey Solomon, Frankie Cocozza, Rylan Clark, etc.) Unreal7 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I wholeheartedly withdraw everything between "football career" and "obviously". I'm not withdrawing this AfD, however: Solomon and Cocozza meet WP:MUSICBIO and Clark meets WP:ENT. A telltale phrase, which I have only just noticed, is "the only non-celebrity in the Jungle".--Launchballer 12:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A quick Google News (looking for RS) search shows plenty of people that believe he has made it to celebrity status. Here's a random one that could be used to improve the article if it becomes more than speculation: [5] Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - certainly not notable as a footballer, however probably notable as a 'media personality' or whatever they're calling realtity show stars these days. GiantSnowman 18:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per GS, fails WP:NFOOTY, but X Factor plus IMACGMOOH appearances probably enough for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aed mac Brian Ó hUiginn[edit]

Aed mac Brian Ó hUiginn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a very short article about a member of an historical family of Irish Poets. It is based entirely on a primary source (Annals of the Four Masters), which has one sentence giving the date of his death. I suspect that that one sentence is all that is known about him, which is not enough to justify a Wikipedia article.

The article is one of many spun out from Ó hUiginn and probably the best thing to do is merge all of them there. However, Irish poets are well outside my comfort zone so I won't be doing it. Besides, that article also has problems, the names on the list are either more names taken from the same primary source, or modern notable Higgins' included as members of the family on, apparently, no other evidence than that Higgins is an Anglicization of Ó hUiginn. So I'm bringing this one article to AfD to see how community opinion shapes up on it, but there is potentially a wider problem to address and I would ask participants to bear that in mind. SpinningSpark 19:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I originally requested speedy delete but this was denied although the article is similar to Domnall mac Brian Ó hÚigínn and Gilla na Neamh Ó h-Uiginn, both deleted as non-notable. Some the Ó hUiginns are notable but others contain just a sentence or two archived from many centuries ago and no further info is available to update to flesh out any kind of biography. Quis separabit? 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Commnent. I was looking at the speedy request at the same time and would have declined it for the same reason; it needs a community debate. SpinningSpark 19:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Looks like impossible to expand this article from verifiable sources. We only know when he died. This could exist as list entry in Ó hUiginn page, or some other list of poets from this family, but does not need own article. (I concur that this is indeed not speedily deletable. It is close to CSD A7, but we don't usually apply that to historical figures.). jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSUCI Communication Program[edit]

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

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

Procedural nomination - dePRODded article was re-PRODded by the same user some time later. PROD reason was: "Neither a web search using Google and DDG, nor a search on GBooks or GNews turns up any third-party sources to establish the notability of this academic program or to verify its current contents." Original declined PROD reason was "Lacks notability". I will comment shortly. Ivanvector (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - indeed, there are no sources not published by the school or its parent school. Fails WP:GNG. Ivanvector (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Sorry, I seem to have forgotten that I PROD'd the article before. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not separately notable. I suppose it could be redirected to California State University Channel Islands as is often done with individual departments, but I don't really see the point of a redirect from this title.--MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 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 hard draft. Consensus is clearly against keeping, but as to whether it should be hard-deleted or draftspaced, it's a bit less clear. There's not consensus against draft spacing, but given the rationales given behind both deleting and draftspacing/keep, I'm guessing there should probably be clear consensus before moving it back into to the mainspace. slakr^\ talk / 07:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fig Tree Books[edit]

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

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

Publishing company doesn't actually exist yet, WP:TOOSOON. Copyright issues, some text lifted directly from first reference. Vrac (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom; presently there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete as the user who accepted it on AfC. I did my best to carefully review the coverage of the source before accepting it. WP:TOOSOON includes guidelines on exactly two topic areas: actors/actresses and films; this topic falls under neither. I noticed the copyright violations you're talking about before I accepted the article; they can be trivially fixed, and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The topic of the article recieved coverage in two periodicals; I'm not sure what you're talking about with "significant coverage". The subject of the article is perfectly notable; the article shouldn't be deleted. APerson (talk!) 00:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: From WP:TOOSOON: "While there are topics that might arguably merit an article, sometimes it is simply too soon." The actors and films sections are just examples. I would argue that a publishing house that has not published anything, and by their own admission will not publish anything until the spring of 2015, fits the definition of a topic that is too soon to merit an article in an encyclopedia.Vrac (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The key is coverage, not whether it has published anything as of yet. Things that are in the offing and have received GNG coverage are notable. Things that are already in operation and have not received GNG coverage are not. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just changed my vote to "Delete" as I now see that a stronger notability standard is needed for companies that have yet to do anything besides produce a few press releases. APerson (talk!) 16:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if copyvio is fixed. While AfD is not for cleanup, we simply cannot accept copyright violations and hope someone fixes it eventually. They must be fixed on sight, or flagged for deletion, and APerson shouldn't have accepted this with a copyreight violation. That said, the company appears to be notable as it has already attracted significant reliable source coverage. TOOSOON exists to allow people to say something isn't notable yet in a polite way. It does not exist to override notability guidelines when a fledgling entity is actually notable (i.e. covered in depth by RS), as is the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to draftspace. So far the publisher has not released anything and has not been the focus of enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to where it'd pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Two sources is NOT enough to show notability in this instance and I fail to see where any other places has really given this fledgling company enough to where it'd pass WP:CORP. All we have so far are two news releases about the company announcing that it will release books next year. Even if we discard WP:TOOSOON as something that can only apply to one small portion of pages on Wikipedia (something that I think is generally unwise because the policy can and has been used in a wide variety of AfDs, from people to objects to concepts) and ignore that the page was written in a very promotional (and likely copyvio) manner, the company would still fail notability guidelines for businesses. This should never have left AfC space. Two sources is not significant and nothing in the sources suggests that the company is so overwhelmingly notable (ie, that they've received a major award or recognition that would keep on that basis alone) that it merits an article in the here and now. On a side note, if you do notice that an article has a copyright violation while it's at AfC and you want to accept the article, fix it before submitting it to the mainspace. You shouldn't decline it on that basis alone- especially if it is easily fixed, but last month Fuhghettaboutit posted a mass letter to the usertalk pages of various AfC editors that detailed what we should do with articles that have copyright violations because there are so many that are getting submitted to the mainspace without people doing anything. You can see the message at my talk page. At no point does he state that you should accept AfC submissions that have copyright violations without fixing or removing the copyvio. Just shoving it into the mainspace and assuming that someone else will fix it is not the right way to address copyright violations. I can't stress it enough- that does not fix the legal issues that arise with copyright violations and promotional articles on Wikipedia and even worse... it makes us part of the problem and not part of the solution. If you don't want to fix the copyvio or otherwise address the issue, don't accept or otherwise touch the AfC submission. But that's just sort of a rant-y aside to the bottom line: this company does not pass notability guidelines yet. Will they? Maybe, but two sources that announce the company launching are not enough to assert notability per WP:CORP. The company exists, but existing does not automatically grant notability and again, two sources just simply isn't enough in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, see for example: "5. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." & WP:NOTADVERTISING, see for example: "5. Advertising, marketing or public relations...Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some thoughts, with respect. It's a bit more than a product announcement -- as a company is being launched, not a product. And it need not be so "short" -- the articles have more information that can be used to lengthen it. And there is not topic to merge it to (unlike what would be the case if it were a product announcement). And I don't think this is what is meant by "speculation and rumor". Plus, it is no more advertising than any other company description. Epeefleche (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Both articles are about 3 paragraphs long (4 for the LJ, if you count the one sentence at the end) and both pretty much say the same thing: the company is going to start up next year, so I think that this is what IZAK meant by a routine product announcement. Both are kind of brief and look like they were roughly based on the same press release. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Even looking only at those two refs, I just doubled (or tripled?) it. It's now not nearly as "short". Epeefleche (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "It will begin releasing...is seeking to publish...books that it will publish...intends ultimately to publish". Articles based on such language strike me as too soon, what if it never happens? Coverage is too thin to override the obvious fact that the company has done nothing. If a future company can get secondary coverage of their press releases, does that really make them notable? Vrac (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you misunderstand notability guidelines. Advice such as CRYSTAL exist to caution against stating future events as fact. They do not exist to state all "future things" are automatically non-notable. A company is notable (or not) for the same reason as anythign else - it has (or hasn't) attracted reliable source coverage. We don't judge notability by importance ("they haven't done anything yet") but rather by notedness ("independent reliable sources choice to write about this"). If a "future company" gets indepth, reliable source coverage (as has happened here), then yes they are notable by the Wikipedia definition, which has nothing to do with importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Indepth [sic]"? That is a generous assessment. GNG says a topic is "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" if it has "significant coverage" (significant is debatable in this case). Paraphrasing GNG, "presumed" is not a guarantee that a subject should be included, particularly if it violates WP:ISNOT. In this case that would be WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, which states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified..." Vrac (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The founding of a company is not a product announcement. There is no more general article where it can be covered (unlike a product, which can be, and usually is, covered on the company page. And I stand by my assessment that the coverage here is sufficiently in depth (a synonym of "significant") to meet the guidelines. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Give me break, this article is the same as a product announcement, the product being publishing. It's not a question of whether there is a more general article where it can be covered, the question is should it be covered at all. I don't think WP:GNG was intended to override WP:COMMON. Step back for a second and ask yourself: would the Encyclopedia Britannica have an entry for a publishing company that hasn't published anything, and whose only claim to fame are announcement coverage in two small articles? Okay so Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and the barrier to entry is lower, but that is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Thanks for pointing out that in-depth is a synonym of significant by the way, I didn't know that. Vrac (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Believe it or not, not-yet-released products are routinely covered at the parent company articles, so "can this be covered sufficiently in a more broad article" is indeed a valid criteria when deciding to create or not create a product article. There is a fundamental difference between a product and a company, which does not allow that consideration on a company article. The GNG is our notability standard, and it allows objectivity. When we start to make "common sense" judgements, we move away from an objective standard for (what I see as) no real reason. As to The Encyclopedia Britannic, 90% of what we cover would never be covered there. Fortunately, we aren't running low on paper to continue to cover more (minorly) notable topics. We're goign to have to just agree to disagree about whether this company meets the minimum notability bar or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Guidelines like WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON are attempts to interject common sense for those cases where "objective standards" are applied to excess. The real reason to move away from them in this case doesn't seem too hard to understand: it's an article on a thing that may or may not exist in the future; and hardly anyone is writing about it. WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL are for just such cases. Vrac (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Thad on the issue of "crystal ball" and the essay "toosoon". The only question I am pondering, as I have not yet !voted, is GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with ThaddeusB's views on the "crystal ball" argument and the essay "toosoon". Cunard (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there has been some discussion on crystal ball not specifically saying that it can apply to existing topics (in this case a company), I've requested that this be added on the WP:NOT talk page. My reason for including toosoon and crystal to articles is that in many cases a topic can exist but it would still fail notability guidelines, meaning that having an article is premature at that point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to draft space per Tokyogirl79. We have no idea if this publisher will be notable until it at least exists. Even then, I wouldn't jump back in with the first thing published. Give it some time. What's the hurry? LaMona (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The publisher already exists. A company does not come into existence when it releases it's first product, but rather some time before that. In the rare case a business attracts interest before it releases a product, it certainly can be notable before the product comes out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the 3 sources in the article might be considered reliable sources in some contexts, but I don't really consider them to be reliable in this context, the articles are only short blurbs, or mainly about another topic.

Also the main author has, in a very general way, declared that he is a paid editor, but not given any of the specifics required by the terms of use (if he has indeed been paid for this article). I've asked him on his talk page if he has been paid for this article. At best we should wait for his response. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A company can be notable before it has actually produced anything, but that is very unusual , and would require very much stronger references. I see no point in moving to draft space--it will reach the 6 month expiration long before it is likely to be notable unless its first books are a spectacular success, in which case the article will need a different emphasis entirely, and should be started over. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In substance, the too soon/crystal arguments make general sense here, and delete per portions of notadirectory. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Return to draftspace I created this article as a favor to a friend, a manager at Goldberg MacDuffie. I suggested strongly that they should wait until the case could be better made for notabilty, but there was great eagerness at the time. I am not surprised that it was slated for deletion, but believe that the company may be considered notable down the road, once their releases begin. Firstmilast (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, given that Wikipedia is not a place to publish rumours and product announcements, and that it's simply too soon for the company to have an article. Aerospeed (Talk) 00:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is neither a rumor nor a product announcement. Epeefleche (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Ivry, Sara (2014-06-11). "New Jewish Publishing House To Launch in 2015". Tablet. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
  2. Williams, Wilda (2014-09-23). "A New Year, a New Publisher: Fig Tree Books". Library Journal. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
  3. McDonough, Yona Zeldis (2014-02-20). "Print is Dead". Lilith. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
  4. Casavant, Hillary (2014-09-23). "Up-and-coming book publishers". The Writer. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fig Tree Books to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • You've added one reference - from the blog "Lilith"; adding non-reliable sources to mentions-in-passing doesn't addup to a single reliable source. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My second preference (after "keep") is to redirect to Frederic D. Price (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect would be better than a red link because this is a plausible search term. Preserving the history under the redirect would be better than deleting the history. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:

  The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

  A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

  Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

  In sum, the benefits or restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

  Cunard (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Frederic D. Price is the founder and CEO of Fig Tree Books. I created an article about him, merging some of the information in Fig Tree Books into his article. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not do this. The Price article has the same problem - he isn't notable. Adding in a non-notable publisher-to-be doesn't make either topic notable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing as no consensus after low participation in 3 relistings. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CB the Red Caboose[edit]

CB the Red Caboose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor Character from Starland Express. Ridernyc (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 16 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 06:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The show is actually called Starlight Express and the Red Caboose was actually a major character in the original production. The worst case here is some sort of merger per WP:ATD but I'm content with the page as a reasonable spin-off for this long-running popular success. Andrew D. (talk) 12:44, 23 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, Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Out of curiousity, are there any explicit guidelines/policies covering notability of fictional characters? NickCT (talk) 18:33, 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 keep. I have added the ((Cleanup AfD)) template to the article per the discussion herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur W. Page[edit]

Arthur W. Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hagiography that makes wildly extravagant claims about its subject, such as "Page has become generally recognized as the dean of public relations and communications." Thinly sourced, and unsalvageable in its present form. Coretheapple (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Arthur+W.+Page%22 points to true notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article at the current time is an unabashed advertisement for its subject of limited or no encyclopedic value, of the kind that are ordinary speedily deleted. It has been that way for eight years. If someone wishes to userify the article and start from scratch, fine. Coretheapple (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup As noted in History of public relations, he is sometimes referred to as one of the "Fathers" of public relations. He was influential in dramatically changing public perception of AT&T and his work there is the subject of significant historical debate, with some saying he used advertising dollars to manipulate the press and others saying he ethically/successfully glorified how AT&T supports public needs. We should delete promotional articles when notability is fringe, but this figure is important and worth the time for cleanup. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Person was definitely notable enough for a WP entry. WP:SOFIXIT --TMD Talk Page. 01:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pagnotta[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple sources. Article largely written by SPA an dseems to consist almost entirely of original research. Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree that coverage I was able to locate doesn't seem to meet the GNG standard. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find reliable sources sufficiently addressing this article's subject. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP appears to be successful, but not rising to the level of historical significance.CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete per above - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a search shows there appear to be a number of Michael Pagnottas, including one involved in the construction industry, and one who has an appointment at London South Bank University. However, neither of those are this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Fleet (band)[edit]

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

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

I could not establish that they met WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Created by WP:SPA nearly 4 years ago. Prodded by RadioFan and I couldn't understand JohnCD's reasons for removal. Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the article was actually deleted in 2011 as a result of RadioFan's PROD, but I restored it recently as a contested PROD following a request at WP:REFUND#Baltic Fleet (band). JohnCD (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • JohnCD, thanks for explaining, Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: substantial profile in The Guardian, played alongside Yoko Ono at her festival. PamD 20:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep No idea what they've done in the last year and to my ear they sound far too much like OMD (just because you're from near Liverpool and like Dr Who doesn't mean that you have to sound like you've just walked out of a Tardis in 1983) but in 2013 they were "the next big thing". I'd have thought that Paul Fleming would be deserving of an article himself.

Their label is here: http://www.blowup.co.uk/records/artists/baltic-fleet and although the "OMG PRIMARY!!" chorus will already have started, their press clippings on that page should suffice to pass WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination Pam and Andy have convinced me; thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 12:09, 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 redirect to St. Ignatius, Montana#Schools. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier Lake School[edit]

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

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

This new private school has opened three months ago and in this short time they have not been covered by enough reliable secondary sources to make the organization compatible with WP:NSCHOOL/WP:ORG guidelines. They also do not meet the other criteria that would make them notable. I've conducted an online research to establish the amount of coverage in news and on web articles, I've found only two articles dedicated to the organization: [6] [7]. Apart from the two articles, there are only small citations, like the one at the bottom of this article about democratic schools and several primary sources, like the official website and several social media profiles. I don't see any evidence of notability for this three-months old organization and all the hints (including the COI issue) point to a classic case of promotional WP:TOOSOON. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 14:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not commenting either way on its notability, but LowLevel73, wouldn't an WP:ATD be a redirect to St. Ignatius, Montana#Schools rahter than deletion? Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boleyn, I prefer to wait for other editors to reach a consensus about the best way to handle the article of a brand new educational organization for which there is no evidence of notability. Personally, I wouldn't create a redirect for a brand new company/topic/name that wouldn't probably be searched by Wikipedia users, but maybe other editors will have other opinions or suggestions. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 22:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect if found non-notable per WP:Redirects are cheap and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia, I vote for redirect, unless someone can back up that this, like most high schools, meets Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) / WP:ORG. If it is WP:TOOSOON, a redirect would assist anyone looking up the school, without hindering anybody, and would actually take up less space. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:Redirects are cheap. Probably not notable now, but maybe notable in a year or two. A redirect preserves the text for future use. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to an entry at List of democratic schools instead of the above. School is more notable as a Sudbury Valley-style school than as a Montana school. (Fun fact—this area is actually my academic specialty, but don't ask me why that list is still a mess.) Also I understand that it's theoretically nicer to get second opinions at AfD, but "before" says to redirect wherever possible, ostensibly to save our attention for other things. This is a noncontroversial redirect czar ⨹ 04:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added it to that list, so a redirect to List_of_democratic_schools#United_States_of_America would now be feasible. Personally, I prefer a redirect to St. Ignatius, Montana#Schools, because there is more room in this for a sentence on the school to explain a bit more about it, and because it gives informaiton on the general area, plus redirect to school district is the norm. However, I understand czar's thinking, and don't object to it. Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ignatius redirect is fine too czar ⨹ 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. AFAICS the article is promotional, broadly construed. I would be tempted to delete it but a redirect would give it the benefit of the doubt. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kudpung, any opinion on which of the options to redirect it to? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ignatius, Montana#Schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Rizzo[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school board trustee and a municipal councillor in a suburb — neither of which is a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. But the article doesn't provide any compelling evidence that she's any more notable than the norm for those positions — everything this article either describes or sources is completely standard and normal stuff that's not even slightly out of the ordinary for a school board trustee or a suburban municipal councillor. All local political figures generate at least this much coverage in the local media, so such coverage is purely WP:ROUTINE if it doesn't demonstrate a compelling reason why she would warrant permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The most generous conclusion would be WP:TOOSON. When this politician is elected to a national-level office, it will be time for a WP article. LaMona (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Per above, possibly a victim of WP:TOOSOON. BenLinus1214 (talk) 22:13, 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 keep. j⚛e decker^talk 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Wyllie[edit]

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

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

There are no Wikipedia pages of any other PR executives from major sports franchises on Wikipedia. This individual is just seeking attention. Yes, his name has been in a number of major news outlets, but only because he's a PR guy, not because he's notable. There are also weasel words throughout the article. 50.177.81.255 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I created the nom for the IP. ansh666 23:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I don't see any great harm in having this, but is he notable? This article would be a good profile in an alumni association newsletter, which we could use as background for the one thing that makes him notable, but what is that thing? The Pete Rozelle award seems to be a fairly minor award – we only have one sentence on it. A well-liked guy who does a good job and is active in community work, but it seems like it needs something more. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are plenty of RS articles about him, and he has been a top ranking sports executive for decades with a very public profile. The Pete Rozelle is a major national award, which definitely helps as well. There is only one sentence there purely because no one has bothered to write more about it yet. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 15:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found several news articles quickly in a google news search from reliable sources. Appears to surpass WP:GNG. We may need to edit based on WP:COI and/or WP:NPV and or WP:ADV... but these are all editing and cleanup issues, not an issue about the deletion of the article. Any "weasel words" can be edited out and an article of a notable individual will remain.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:GNG 24.114.54.131 (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Paulmcdonald's comments above. Cbl62 (talk) 17:35, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 20:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This seems like a situation of WP:NOTNOW. A nomination for Awara (which isn't actually listed on his IMDb page) and other nominations aren't sufficient in my view. Also note that there's an fairly obvious WP:COI issue here. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Imdb for Awara here lists only Jeet Ganguly for music not Sen. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Ramachandra Guruji[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not seeing any significant coverage. This probably could have been a speedy delete. NickCT (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - not notable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Delete- just checked google news , there are articles about him claiming to know where the malaysian airlines have been drowned hmm I have found other articles in wiki with far worse citations, but this should go due to notability issue Shrikanthv (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough evidence of notability. The articles related to Malaysian Airlines are insufficient; dodgy publishers, passing mentions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Yes, Guruji is not eligible for inclusion on encyclopedia for they have not been written about in detail in multiple independent, reliable sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:04, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Howard[edit]

John H. Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about an artist and illustrator, cited only to primary sources (his self-penned profile on the Saatchi Art website and a profile on a gallery website) with claims that cannot be substantiated. It is questionable what weight you can put on unidentified "awards" from the New York Society of Illustrators and the LA Society of Illustrators. The claim of "work" in permanent collections seems suspect too - the only thing in the searchable Smithsonian collection, for example, is a folder containing newspaper clippings and exhibition announcements. Overall, it looks like Howard has had a long and successful career as an illustrator, but I can't see any proof he meets WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't see how he meets WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE either. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Willing to delete unless I get some more facts. Illustrations appear notable. --Chan12345 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete – He has been plugged into the NY art scene and has had plenty of shows, but I can't find any mention of reviews. I wonder what's in the folder at the Smithsonian. Would it be reviews? They may be from some time ago, so they wouldn't be online. This is really borderline. He's represented by top galleries, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence of impact. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB he's not represented by a top gallery, otherwise presumably it would have a Wikipedia write up. Saatchi Art is an art sales website that any artist can join. Sionk (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. His main gallery is not as notable as I thought. I'm still intrigued by the contents of the folder at the Smithsonian. It might contain exactly what we need to establish notability. If this article is deleted I hope it is without prejudice, so that someone can create it again if sources are found. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 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 redirect to Get Rich or Die Tryin' (album). j⚛e decker^talk 00:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patiently Waiting[edit]

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

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

There are no external sources that analyze the song apart from album reviews, and there is little coverage on live appearances. The song wasn't released as a single, doesn't have a music video, and has no international chart success. I suggest deletion or eventual redirect to the album page. Retrohead (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Little to no RS coverage of this song specifically. Everymorning talk 13:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect at the time I created this I thought that if a song charted it was automatically notable.--Yankees10 17:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect while single release is not an automatic indicator of notability, there simply isn't sufficient coverage to warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Roux[edit]

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

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

This was nominated for CSD on copyright grounds, however the editor rebuilt the article and now there is insufficent proof of copyright to speedy delete. Ordinarily this would be the end of the deletion concern, however I remain concerned about the article's current state, it still reads somewhat like an advertisement and I am uncertain that there is sufficient notability to justify having an article on the subject. I put to the community the issue of whether or not the article should be retained on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable individual. Lacks non-trivial support. Can't find much about him on web. reddogsix (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could find a couple of semi-good refs, but not enough. Bgwhite (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per AllyD. Keep There is this, three pages of stories in which he figures as composer, performer, festival director... There also seems to be more than a few hits for guitar quartets performing his work. It's not easy for a classical composer to get noticed, but I think he's notable enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't verify details which would allow this individual to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. NickCT (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I've looked at this a couple of times during the AfD and extended the article with such references as I could find. The faculty biography provides basic verification but, while wary of the cultural bias under which a worthy composer/performer such as Roux gets much less media coverage than sundry celebs, the awards and reviews to hand don't really provide the in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK, to facilitate this discussion I'm changing my !vote to Delete. By now I think we've done what we can. Seems unlikely that more sources will be found. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:14, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Mehrotra[edit]

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

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

Repeatedly recreated WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Also see deletion record for Santosh K. Mehrotra. Article is all primary sources, might not meet notability guidelines. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 12:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt without consideration of whether the subject is notable, per WP:TNT. Unsourced autobiography, repeatedly re-created, promotional language. It would need a ground-up rewrite by a neutral party to be sure of getting rid of the promotional content and so far the only significant contributor to the article has been the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable Indian economist. Needs a rewrite and sourcing but should be fairly easy. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)) Have trimmed it right down and looking to add bits with sourcing. Will notify the author. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly a notable economist who has served in important positions in India and internationally. See Google Books cite here. The problem is that the subject wrote it himself. Which explains why there are no other contributors -- until a week ago it was a User page. (Second time I've seen that recently -- new user tries to create an article by creating another user). Anyway, the self-written stuff is now gone and there are several reviews of the book cited. There should be no problem in finding 3rd-party material for an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then please find it. EEng (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he clearly passes WP:NACADEMICS #C1, #C6, #C7. Currently we have 14 footnotes to 3rd party sources. Is it too soon to propose a speedy keep? – Margin1522 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria you mention are:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Please point to the sources satisfying these criteria. EEng (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. The six cited book reviews and hundreds of citations for Development with a human face

6. Director General of the National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development

7. Contributions at UNDP and UNICEF

If you like, you can put Director General under 7. But thanks to Msrasnw, these are all in the article now. My own approach to these discussions is that the onus is on the nominator and delete !voters to demonstrate not only that that 3rd party sources are lacking (which they aren't, now), but that they are unlikely to be found. WP:BEFORE – Margin1522 (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the notes to WP:ACADEMIC:

1. "To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books"

6. The National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development is a government agency, not an academic institution.

7. The UNDP/UNICEF bio simply lists some books he's written. That's far from evidence that he's "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" or "has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert..."

EEng (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Are you saying that the reviews and citations weren't in peer-reviewed scholarly publications? For example, here is the editorial board of the International Journal of Educational Development. Granted, I haven't checked each one. I don't see much reason to doubt it.

6. It has a research function. But that's why I said that if you like you can put Director General under 7.

7. I am going by the description "has made substantial impact outside academia". Don't we have a category for an economist who has been influential in shaping development policy at the United Nations? If we don't we should. Policies to fight poverty in the developing world have a substantial impact millions of people. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well, are they? You tell me. But a single well-cited work isn't enough, and six reviews is nothing.

6. A government agency that "has a research function" is not "a major academic institution or major academic society". For example, I doubt the head of the US Census Bureau would automatically be notable. Anyway, UNDP and UNICEF says he's "an independent expert currently serving the Government of India as senior advisor", not that he holds "a highest-level elected or appointed academic post". As for this counting under 7., we'd still need sources confirming his "substantial impact" in that role.

7. Yes, policies to fight poverty, have a substantial impact, as a whole. What we need to know is whether his policies have made a substantial impact. And we need sources that tell us that.

EEng (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, they are. We have articles on Development and Change, The Economic Journal, and the Journal of International Development. They are reputable, peer-reviewed journals. As for only one book, here at AfD we don't have to write the article or find the sources for every publication. All we have to do is decide whether it's likely that sources exist such that a well-sourced article could be written. So far, to me, the answer seems to be yes.

7. About his impact, we do have the quote below: "policy analysts who have from time to time had a marked impact upon global social policy discourses. Perhaps foremost among these has been Santosh Mehrotra." Also I would expect this to be in each of the reviews. I seems a bit hasty to delete the article before reading the reviews. This may take some time, since they all require subscriptions. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be getting near what's needed. However, the sources do need to exist in reality, not just in likelihood. (They don't need to actually be in the article however, though I've often thought that's a stupid provision.) EEng (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No third-party reliable sources. The book is listed as having been edited by Mehrotra and one other LC record, although the table of contents doesn't list authors [8] for the chapters so it isn't possible to know what part is attributed to him. In any case, all of the reviews here are for the same book, and one book is not enough for notability, especially if responsibility for the text is shared. Also, I was unable to find a record of the reviews in Economic Journal nor Journal of Educational Development. At that point I gave up. LaMona (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see the table of contents at Amazon. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Looked there. Still not clear why they are listed as "editors" in some catalogs. Again, ToC doesn't include authors, so presumably both were equal authors of all, but that fact doesn't confer notability on Mehrota, just authorship. LaMona (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I should have said that at Amazon you have to click "Look inside". The TOC of the actual book shows chapter authors. For the Economic Journal and Journal of Educational Development, I've added the doi codes of the reviews, so you can check those.– Margin1522 (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Clueless self-embarrassment, via recreation of prior-deleted autobio, is in and of itself an almost surefire sign of non-notability.

Plutarch relates, that before this, upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."

— Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)

All primary sources. EEng (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• An additional source which seems to me to support the claim to notability is: Deacon, Bob. 1997 Global social policy: International organizations and the future of welfare. Sage (cited 544 according to GS indicating a notable source) includes the quote:

UNICEF, in particular its Division of Policy and Planning in New York, has continued to provide an institutional home to a number of significant social policy analysts who have from time to time had a marked impact upon global social policy discourses. Perhaps foremost among these has been Santosh Mehrotra. With Richard Jolly he wrote, as we reported in the section earlier on the UNDP, the influential Development with a Human Face" (Mehrotra and Jolly, 1997) that drew lessons..... (Msrasnw (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Overall consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University clubs in Japan[edit]

University clubs in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be very similar to this AfD discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Room games in Orientation Camps for University Freshmen in Hong Kong. Delete - doesn't seem to be encyclopedic Gbawden (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A mish-mash essay made up of what appears to be original research by the author about Kyoto University. If there is any encyclopedic information of note, it could always be added to the Kyoto University. --DAJF (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this appears to be an essay written in Japanese and then badly translated. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Appears to be a recurring problem with a well-intentioned contributor who is creating many articles like this at a high rate. I had redirect Mudslide in Japan for similar reasons, but have restored it after objections; there are also things like Water in Japan Japanese water and Obachan in Osaka (now salted). Dekimasuよ! 01:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I live in Tokyo and this is a valuable article, please keep --Luv my range rover (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC) — Luv my range rover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, jumping straight into an AfD discussion for your first edit. Unfortunately, arguments such as "I think it's a valuable article" are not particularly persuasive as they are basically subjective. See WP:ADDSVALUE for more details. --DAJF (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Kyoto University. The Hart House clubs are in the article Hart House (University of Toronto) rather than their own article. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: These articles (by Kyodaiteeter are plainly being added in bulk -- but if you look at reference 10 in this article, it is to a site with a message saying it closed earlier this year. So the articles are already out of date. The content is of hopelessly low quality anyway. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, probably the topic merits one sentence in the Kyoto University article. I am dubious about a redirect, as the article is currently orphan and the title is a bit misleading and not an obvious search term. Cavarrone 09:43, 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. Michig (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Sunheart[edit]

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

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

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

Contested prod. Absolutely non-notable and promotional. Self-published pinup model and sometime magazine writer who fails WP:BIO. Valfontis (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Self-published writer, fails WP:AUTHOR, clearly promotional. Blackguard 09:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could find no evidence of the independent coverage required to pass WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I note that she also uses the name "Gaby Sunheart" and that under that name I did find a 2010 interview about one of her books in the Orange County Register: "Laguna author: eating healthy won't break the bank". This is not substantive enough, by itself, to change my !vote, though. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My search of news sources did not yield much to suggest notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Steiner[edit]

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

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

Steiner doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NNC and the sources extension of WP:GNG. I don't generally like to fall all the way back onto the root GNG for a delete !vote but it is quite clear about sourcing and "coverage". WP:NACTOR is less of a factor if we are to take the claims in the article at face value and might warrant further discussion regarding precedent of similar articles, however these are entirely unverifiable and drags us back to GNG and BLP matters. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 08:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no references proving notability. (Actually, no references at all.) --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Note that this close does not preclude a merger to Govigama#Prominent members of the Govigama community. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Govigama people[edit]

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

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

Unsourced list of Sri Lankan Politicians, claimed to belong to a caste system of a bygone era. None have claimed or have been verified as Govigama. Blackknight12 (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The list at Govigama#Prominent members of the Govigama community has citations for every entry. This list duplicates that but omits the citations and adds about ten more entries. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not every citation there was a reliable source, I have removed those that weren't. This list has none at all. Govigama is similar to a Social class and so is not specific to certain people but whole families, and many families with in the country, such as the Social structure of the United Kingdom or the United States. And while people in the United States and other places are not defined by their "rich", "middle class", or "poor" status, people do not define themselves by their caste in Sri Lanka. Not in the late 20th and 21st centuries at least.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:41, 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, czar ⨹ 05:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe what is needed here is a cleanup. --Lee (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This 4 year old article provides useful information to the readers who are interested in socio-politics of Sri Lanka. --ShehanW ^talk 05:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushal Kishore (lyricist & Script Writer)[edit]

Kaushal Kishore (lyricist & Script Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Don't believe that this person is notable. He appears to have been one of 4 people who wrote lyrics for a film. Don't believe that achievement gives him lasting notability. Only 24, perhaps in time he will be Gbawden (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No reliable secondary sources. Vrac (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Not notable, lacks RS, and the article is unfinished. Also, perhaps in an attempt to create this article, Kunalverma800 may have created User:Kaushal Kishore (lyricist) back in May, and then recently tried to delete it. Do we need to help him out there, to delete the extra user account? – Margin1522 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -May have written any or many hit/flop songs. As they have not been written about in detail in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, they do not belong to Wikipedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, as long as SPA-'Kunalverma800' doesn't abuse multiple accounts -Kaushal Kishore (lyricist)-, it should be OK to have them two account, if it is them. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:18, 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) 08:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plezuro[edit]

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

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

There is no evidence of notability for this article, nor are there any references (not one) qualifying as a reliable source. The link to the project’s page on github clearly does not qualify. A web search does not appear to find anything related to the language. A PROD tag has been removed from the article, but without the notability and reference issues being addressed. Hence this AfD. Rwessel (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can see nothing here to indicate notability. Creator is almost a WP:SPA, and I have concerns there may be a WP:COI issue too. That doesn't make it non-notable, but is worth bearing in mind Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sourcing and brand new product. This product may indeed be used in the future, but until there is a considerable userbase and reliable sources, I would call it non-notable. Projects do not belong on Wikipedia until a considerable impact can be foreseen. Blaise170 (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 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 Speedy Delete per WP:A7. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Noone[edit]

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

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

No indication of significance; the article is 1 short sentence long and about a blogger. There isn't any specific notability guideline on bloggers, and the article fails WP:GNG. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:00, 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 redirect to DC Comics' shared universe films#Suicide Squad (2016). (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Squad (film)[edit]

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

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

WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the appropriate section of DC Comics' shared universe films until production begins, per WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per Metropolitan90's point. NinjaTazzyDevil (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There has been substantial coverage of this films development already in various media... its definitely coming out and there is casting news so its worth having its own article at this point. Spanneraol (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Metropolitan90 - no need for these to have separate articles until they are actual films. Artw (talk)

I'm going to link this article in the next edition of the WP:TOP25, as Suicide Squad was the second most popular article on Wikipedia last week. So I am in favor of any outcome except delete, so this points to the right place wherever that may be.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per the notability guidelines for future films. It is too premature to have a stand-alone article when filming has not started and will not start for over four months. It is customary for there to be news coverage about such developments as if there will be a film, but historically, such developments are not guarantees of actual film productions. (The failed Justice League production is one such example.) We can maintain a section about this development process in the meantime. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the Draft:Suicide Squad (film) which is in works, and leave a new redirect with a warning edit-notice. Draft will be moved to mainspace when article's ready (production begins). It's what we did to Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film) but didn't put the edit-notice, which should be put here. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I support the decision to redirect the article; I only nominated it for deletion, with hope that no-one ever recreates the article after seeing the final verdict of this discussion. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I would suggest to merge it into the draft I mentioned above, which is a better way to create an article before the production begins. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As it stands, there is just enough information for this to warrant its own article. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not confirmed, when its filming will start. So the film can't have its own article until production begins. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... So, the reference by Collider is incorrect? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - As per WP:NFF, films should not have their own articles until principal photography has begun.Richiekim (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, as per the notability guidelines for future films. Article opens when the film goes into production. - SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per WP:NFF, shooting has not begun yet. Babita arora 10:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Conspirators Hierarchy, the Committee of 300[edit]

The Conspirators Hierarchy, the Committee of 300 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable self-published book by non-notable conspiracy theorist Orange Mike | Talk 04:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NBOOK. Unable to find coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Location (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. This just doesn't have the coverage necessary to pass NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet forums[edit]

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

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

In line with WP:NOTDIR, this is basically an indiscriminate list of Internet forums. It is fine as a category but any attempt to rank these is basically WP:OR (in contrast to List of most popular websites which has secondary sources with some sort of ranking measures. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's "fine as a category" (and we do have Category:Internet forums), then it can't simultaneously be "indiscriminate" as a list because those are just different formats for the same information. See WP:CLN. It seems like your complaint is not with the list's mere existence but instead with some of the sortable columns of data annotations, and such questions over content are for ordinary editing and discussion to hash out. postdlf (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I disagree with the mere existence of the list itself due to the difficulty in obtaining reliable sources and because the topic (of all internet forums) so broad it would be unmanageable. As to the criteria and/or columns and annotations, I agree with you, that's a ordinary content issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it seems to be limited to notable forums, so it's not indiscriminate, and has information that can't be included in a category. Siuenti (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn. After seeing List of blogs, it seems like it can be done with a change in content. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwok Man Tai[edit]

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

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

I can't find independent references that denote notability per WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Someone with an understanding of Cantonese may be able to find the necessary sources. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like most of the awards are just some run of the mill student competitions. Sources are mostly primary sources of the competitions (press release of the results, say). zh:郭文棣, by the same editor (at least name match), is no better. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As of now, he fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_photography#Notability_criteria_for_photographers. However, I did visit his website, and those are some stunning photographs. He is obviously a talented and serious photographer. So I would say WP:TOOSOON. If and when he has a book published and has some some solo exhibitions, he will pass. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. This article has been deleted twice recently, and hasn't really changed much at all since then. But, the extra minor additions managed to make this article unsuitable for CSD or PROD, although would probably have the same outcome as this deletion nomination (given previous deletions of the page). The subject does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE, and there is a distinct lack of secondary sources in the article. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 03:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KnowMads[edit]

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

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

Prod contested by what I would assume would be the author (IP whose only edit was to delete the prod). Band fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBAND, et al. Deadbeef 01:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: simultaneously nominating their two article'd albums:

Prologue (KnowMads EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Knewbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deadbeef 02:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:BAND, essentially no RS coverage. Everymorning talk to me 03:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all three - Various source searches are not providing significant coverage to qualify articles for these topics as per WP:N. Regarding KnowMads, I found the following sources, but the depth of coverage is not significant: [9], [10], [11]. The same goes for The Knewbook, for which I have only found [12], [13]. I haven't found any reliable sources for the Prologue EP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 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 08:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Kanonji[edit]

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

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

Previously a redirect to List of Bleach characters, the page was restored after this discussion with the suggestion an AFD should take place after restoration. This is that AFD. Page was a redirect for 7 years before it suddenly came up for discussion.

Minor support character without sufficient notability to warrant a separate article. Possible place on List of Bleach characters but given the very large cast of that series and the low importance of the character there doesn't seem much need for either a redirect or a merge. SephyTheThird (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Bleach characters, why was this article re-made again? The whole thing is total WP:OR and fails per WP:N but seeing the character is relevant to Bleach I see no problem as it being a redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Bleach characters for the reasons that Knowledgekid87 stated above. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the character is not even mentioned on the character page meaning that a redirection would not be useful as things stand now. Unless someone is planning to add info on this character deletion may be the best step.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Bleach characters - IP's gotta point - "Don Kanonji" isn't mentioned on the "List of Bleach characters" article so don't see any point redirecting there if he's not mentioned? –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I actually assumed he was an important character but as the below have pointed out = If he was important he would've been on the list anyway..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete outright. If Don Kanonji really is a "character [...] so obscure that it is not mentioned in a very inclusive list of characters", as stated by User:TEB728 on the RfD, perhaps he shouldn't exist on Wikipedia at all. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research about a non-notable character. Most importantly, do not redirect to a list article that does not even mention him. —teb728 t c 06:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why does this page even exist? Minor character is minor and not worth an entire article which consists of trivia. —KirtZ^Message 00:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above, a redirect should not be left, as the name is not even mentioned in List of Bleach characters. --DAJF (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As others have stated, he is a very minor character. He was basically featured in one episode, then showed up occasionally as a comic relief character in episodes not related to the main plot. I don't see any evidence that he is notable. The article List of Bleach characters already seems overly long, with a lot of minor characters listed, so merging to it would only make it worse. Calathan (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually even worse than I expected. It requires a severe and focused no-prisoners rewrite, but I suspect no one will do it due to the likely politics involved. If I recall correctly the articles for the franchise are badly handled as a whole in much the same way. Unfortunately this is what happens when a series has dozens of characters that pop up on a fairly regular basis or form pretty large story arcs. SephyTheThird (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 03:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Alaa[edit]

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

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

Not notable, no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. The links at the bottom of the page are all about Yousef Erakat, and Alaa is not mentioned in any of them. Article creator removed PROD without explanation. Everymorning talk to me 00:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not even a hint of notability. No sources, no notability... --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any mention in reliable sources. Clearly not notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:35, 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. Kudos to User:Location for knowing the relevant notability guideline. This close is without prejudice to the creation of a redirect to articles where this incident is mentioned, if there is a consensus at that article that such a mention is appropriate. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Khoury Incident[edit]

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

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

With scant coverage in independent sources, it's impossible for us to sustain a neutral article on a WP:FRINGE topic. bobrayner (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a microstub that tells our readers almost nothing. One source is a passing mention. The other is a book which purports to "explore the convictions held by many in the modern day world that extraterrestrials, angels, fairy-folk, and other-dimensional intelligences regularly interact with human beings." This is clearly a fringe, unreliable source which can't be used to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:EVENT, the relevant guideline. - Location (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems notable but not encyclopedic; could have been covered in "List of Alien abduction claimants", had such an article existed. Logos (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very WP:Fringey. Not seeing much real coverage. NickCT (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Someone has added some ufo web pages and a blog as additional citations, however these aren't reliable independent sources that would indicate notability outside of the fringe ufo enthusiast bubble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable.Nickm57 (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I really want to keep this because it is so funny. Rare "Chinese type" DNA! Not just aliens, but Oriental aliens. There appear to be many newspaper references to an Australian "Peter Khoury", who is referred to as "an academic and playwright in Sydney" in one article written by him (about a musical). A man of the same name is described as an "NRMA spokesperson" several other articles about roads in Australia (the naming of a new road, The Northern Star, Lismore, Australia; The Queensland Times (Ipswich, Australia). Still, this is way too little to make him notable, even if he is the same Peter Khoury. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I suppose I don't have much of a chance. I believe that people's view of the Jerome Clark encyclopedia is off base; Andy Smith of Middle Tennessee State University, writing in the Penn State University Press journal Utopian Studies (article, through JSTOR), views it as a significant and reliable source in the study of the paranormal. Smith seems to think that Clark's reliable because he documents the paranormal as a sociological and folkloristic phenomenon, saying basically that he is chronicling people's claims, rather than believing their stories. All this is to say that Clark looks like a reliable professional encyclopedia, and because of that, we ought not delete it: if a professional encyclopedia finds the topic encyclopedic, why should we disagree? Trim the junk details, for sure (we'll just have a stub remaining), but someone with access to Clark's book would be able to use his sources. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this particular book, but I think some people consider Clark a reliable source simply because he includes both credulous and skeptical views in his books, although, like most bestselling UFO authors, his work leans toward emphasizing the credulous and sensational. He's also well known for taking a position against scientific skepticism [14]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going with the academic who trusts him. I ran a complete JSTOR search for <"extraordinary encounters" and clark>, although I didn't check any other academic databases or aggregators, but I did do the same search at Google; all of these returned no scholarly results discussing the encyclopedia, except for Smith. In the absence of any other academic opinions, I see no reason to distrust Smith or to assume that we know better than he does, although of course I'm willing to change my opinion if presented with an academic source that I failed to find earlier. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Clark is reliable, I don't see how a mention across pages 17-18 in one book makes a person notable enough for a stand-alone article. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B, when we delete an article (about any subject) on notability grounds, it means that we believe that a proper encyclopedia article cannot be written on the topic, since there's not enough sourcing. In this case, an encyclopedia article has been written on her and included in a professional encyclopedia: what business do we have telling the professional encyclopedia that they're wrong, that they shouldn't have included her? We absolutely must defer to professional judgement. This assumes that we should rely on Clark as a reliable scholarly professional; again, I think this, but I'm not unconvinceable otherwise. If we don't count him as a reliable scholarly professional, my argument is moot. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your "explanation" of what "we" do when we decide to delete an article, it seems to have very ittle relation to what is written in WP:NOTE. I reaslise you belive tyou have some sort of divime right to interpret guidelines and policy, but you don't. The guideline sats "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." A page in a dodgy 'encyclopedia' of woo is not significance coverage in reliable sources. You are on your own on this one. Completely. And Clark can barely be describerd as an encylopedia, let alone a "professional" one, whetever you think that means. Paul B (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I did not vote keep. Krishnachattan helpfully changed my vote for me in this edit [15]. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B, kindly read WP:NPA and respond accordingly; I cannot imagine why you have attacked me in this way. It would be appreciated if you began addressing the issue at hand (bringing sources to address Clark's reliability or non-reliability) instead of name-calling and presuming that you know better than the scholar whom I cited. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has encyclopedic content. it is one of break through in paranormal history it has biological evidence too[one might think to search about alien DNA and these article is perfect one for him ] it is reliable article the sources are even from books .this article may find stupid for ordinary people but for ufo researchers it is good article .i stand up to prevent deletion of this article. — Preceding Krishnachaitan comment added by Krishnachaitan (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources are insufficient to justify an article however I would not object to this being mentioned in an appropriate list article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and semi-protect if you are concerned about neutrality then we can protect it immediately. The nominator's argument looks like WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The notion that we would consider the works of Jerome Clark to be a reliable source for any contentious claim whatsover strikes me as bizarre and appalling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osi²[edit]

Osi² (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a Wikipedia page for a nonexistent person. There are no sources to back up the information on this page which leads me to believe that this article is fake. BKman74 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]