< 9 January	11 January >

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

The result was Withdrawn. - Wasn't aware of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES so pointless the AFD carrying on, Thanks Michaelzeng7, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Studio West[edit]

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

non notable academy, Fails GNG -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Articles about schools which serve any form of secondary education are usually kept at AfD unless the article is a hoax. The precedent is documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The article says that the school is sixth form, "representing the final years of secondary education". The reason we keep articles about secondary schools is because they are an important part of their respective communities, and in-depth coverage about them can almost always be found. I found this through a google search: [1]. Here are a couple passing mentions which prove it is not a hoax: [2], [3], [4]. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G4. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decade of darkness[edit]

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

Several reasons. The article title is unsatisfactory: 'decade of darkness' is just a cheap journalistic phrase, I'm sure it's been used elswhere. More to the point, this is essentially an article which risks being a POV fork. TheLongTone (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was previously deleted as as a biased WP:NPOV WP:AXE and it still is. Essentially a political Soapbox. - Ahunt (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it rang a bell. If it's a recreation, can't it be speedied?TheLongTone (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as WP:G4, it was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness. I will tag it for CSD. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and it is gone again. - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Process education model[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of new science works. This also seems like an original research. No sources have been provided. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 January 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 Meltdown (EP). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sun in California[edit]

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

no reference provided and false info given, Sun in California is not the first single from the Meltdown EP Szaboci (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meltdown (EP), on which this song appears. I'm unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this song; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS at this time. Gong show 23:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to official sources Timber is the first and only one single as of now out of the Meltdown EP. As Timber is currently riding high on the charts there is no confirmed single from either Pitbull's website that always announces the next or other reliable sources. ^[1] ^[2] Szaboci (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meltdown (EP). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. 0z (talk) 22:28, 12 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy´s knife jazzedition[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable specialty jazz book publisher with only a few titles. Article has been tagged for notability and reference-improve since 2011. Previously PRODded and contested in 2011. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*WT:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete in its current state, as unsourced. I'd be happy to keep it otherwise (I see small specialist publishers as being appropriate encyclopedic subjects), but we do need some independent sources. Even a few decent reviews of books they've published would be enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability or external coverage here. Just as most small businesses are not notable, so too this is not notable. Neutrality^talk 05:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be quite a bit of coverage in various google books. The Wire source discusses some of their publications with some substance. The article does need a bit more cleanup, but as sources are taking note of the publisher and its publications I think notability is established. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we weren't going to keep it as an independent article, I'm not sure why it can't be merged to the article on its creator? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or second choice it could be merged to creator, but first choice Keep since seems to have enough coverage in jazz publications to merit keeping by the limited frame of WP:GNG within the jazz world,. We have to make allowances that classical/jazz publications have a smaller pool of secondary sources referencing them than pop music publishers and magazines. I note also that there wasn't a WP Jazz and still isn't a WP Publishing or WP Germany template on the Talk which means this AfD won't hit Alerts. Candleabracadabra notified me of this AfD, knowing that I'm favourable to jazz and classical coverage, but then in the absence of project tag and Alerts it was a fair notification. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Caldeabracadabra: Would you do the honors and notify any WikiProjects that you think need to know about this? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notified In ictu oculi because I know that he has expertise in music subjects. I'm not very familiar with wikiprojects or which might be helpful. Itherwise, off the top of my head, I think user:Drmies is fairly knowledgeable and experienced on music subjects and might be able to assist. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator In light of the lack of notifications to certain very relevant WikiProjects, I have no objections to "restarting the clock" and waiting until January 1 to close this AFD, assuming it isn't a clear "keep" before then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Disregard per notification on 22 December 2013. Keep the original timeline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See above (08:47, 22 December 2013) - Wikiproject Jazz was previously notified and this is linked on the project talk page. (The project doesn't have an automated notification infrastructure set up.) AllyD (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, no proof of notability presented. The reference of The Wire is about the book, not the publisher. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment No objection to merging into the article about the company's creator, Renate Da Rin (and keeping the edit history) instead of "delete", but if it is closed as "merge" I recommend a "hard" close, with the same "force" as an AFD-deletion has. Be aware that the creator's article is currently tagged with ((notability)). The creator's page has also been PRODded in the past. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 6 January 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conscious Robots[edit]

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

Non-notable book of popular philosophy from an unknown publisher. Peter Ells (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly not finding enough to pass GNG or NBOOK. Also Think Ink who printed it is a self-publisher. The imprint, fittingly named "Peacock's Tail Publishing," doesn't seem to return any immediately discernible Google hits unrelated to this book, which is strange (but irrelevant to this discussion, I suppose). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:27, 13 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Beck (Entreprenuer)[edit]

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

Non-notable executive, fails WP:BIO and the GNG. Of the three sources proffered in this article, the first is about his company and his wife, the second is a mere stat block, and the third is from his alumni magazine. A search for sources turn up various social media, blogs, press releases, and articles about his company in which he's quoted (something the GNG explicitly debars as a valid source supporting the notability of the person being quoted), but which do not describe him in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Article was created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity involves the articles for the subject, his wife and his company. Ravenswing 20:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Barry Beck is a notable business executive. Has has founded 2 companies - Bluemercury & M-61 - the first of which will have 50 locations in the United States by the end of 2014. It is a multi million dollar business. He has also been interviewed for his insight into the luxury beauty industry. For example, found here: http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/shoparound/hair-beauty/5-things-i-cant-live-without-bluemercury-cofounder-barry-beck.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gremlin700 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yes, that's the piece that led me to make the comment about people being quoted. I suggest you review WP:GNG, which sets forth that in order to pass the notability bar to qualify for an article, a subject must be discussed in "significant detail" in multiple third-party, independent, reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking. Those sources cannot be solely about his company or his wife, they cannot be pieces doing nothing more than quoting him, they cannot be press releases; they have to discuss him in significant detail. Whether his company or his wife pass notability standards is irrelevant. Ravenswing 21:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Barry Beck was featured in the book "The Intelligent Entrepreneur: How Three Harvard Business School Graduates Learned the 10 Rules of Successful Entrepreneurship. This reference has been added to his article. It is a significant, reliable third-part source. TheGoogle eBook links directly to the pages discussing his involvement in the founding of the company. Please advise if this addition suffices to have the deletion marker removed.User talk: Gremlin700, 13 January 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have deleted superfluous information and added an additional reference to Washingtonian Magazine, another third-party reputable source.. User talk: Gremlin700, 13 January 2014. —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI want to remove this warning. Could someone please respond to the above edits and conversation. User talk:Gremlin700, 14 January 2014

Reply: He is mentioned in the book you cited, but not in the "significant detail" the GNG requires; the section is actually about his wife. The Washingtonian piece is the one that was already in the article to which I refer above: it quotes Beck about his opinion on several beauty products, but the GNG debars pieces where the subject is quoted talking about something else as supporting the subject's own notability. Ravenswing 19:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find any independent sources to indicate notability separate from that of the company he is a part of. -DJSasso (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply How is it you were unable to find sources? Here: https://www.ourtownkey.com/business/index/id/196. And here: http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x987654207/Bluemercury-rising. And here: http://www.beautynewsnyc.com/skin-care/m-61-the-blue-mercury-new-skin-care-line/. I can't understand how these aren't sufficient. And there are more sources on the page. User talk: Gremlin700, 14 January 2014 —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because those three references you mention only say that he is the co-founder of this company. They say nothing else about HIM, or why he is noteworthy. As others have noted, merely being the founder of a company and the husband of someone more noteworthy than himself - as it would seem - is not sufficient. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Echoedmyron pretty much sums it up. Being mentioned isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. The articles have to be in depth and talk about him in detail. -DJSasso (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Guild for Erotic Labour[edit]

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

Article is non-notable organization, only ref is a dead external link. Meclee (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:A7: No assertion of importance or significance — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. non-notable. jni (talk) 13:30, 11 January 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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Stopper Sanchez[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Seems to be successful (also article is unreferenced and unverified) but doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Juan Stopper Sanchez and Juan Boza Sánchez are the same person. I don't see the point of keeping Juan Stopper Sanchez Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 17:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - please close He appears to be both notable and to have another article where this is clear. I will instead start a merge discussion. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 15 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RTL Kockica[edit]

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

No indication of significance. Itsalleasy (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, this article is essentially spam, however, the TV channel is nationally broadcast (which is a set of maybe a dozen channels?) and should be notable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is that notability? blastertalk! see 09:49, 13 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe "Zicró" Neto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Felipe "Zicró" Neto

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

Non-notable martial artist Peter Rehse (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG because he lacks significant coverage and his second at the IBJJF Pan-Ams was as a brown belt and that doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:18, 17 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kounter Kulture[edit]

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

One-off art event, now long past, with no clear evidence of notability: Wikipedia is not an art event listings magazine. The Anome (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was a one off show. There was coverage in art web sites like [5] and [6]. Not sure if they qualify as reliable sources, but I can find no coverage whatsoever since then. As such, I see no lasting impact that could b used to argue in favour of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 16 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The Becoming[edit]

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

Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, but they do not meet WP:BAND Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC. I couldn't find much coverage beyond a (very brief) Allmusic album review. --Michig (talk) 13:33, 11 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Thompson[edit]

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

Contested prod saying there are "many newspaper references". These seem to mainly be WP:ROUTINE. Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Aveline[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist Peter Rehse (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for MMA fighters and does not appear to meet the notability standards for martial artists. Astudent0 (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 17:53, 15 January 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 Southern Levant. Consensus is that this is an undesirable content fork, and that any useful material should be merged to more specific history articles. In the meantime, I'm (editorially) redirecting the article to a neutral redirect target. Sandstein 08:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Southern Levant[edit]

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

WP:CFORK from History of Israel and History of Palestine. We really don't need three articles covering the same topic - this article has very few eyes on it, compared with History of Israel and History of Palestine, which are much better articles.

According to google books, there are 49 books with the title including the words "History of Israel", 67 with "History of Palestine", and none (really none - both of the links shown are wikipedia duplicates) including the words "History of the Southern Levant".

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be examined for material that can be usefully merged into History of Israel, History of Palestine, Land of Israel or another of the many overlapping articles. However, unlike those articles much of this one is unsourced so it isn't just a matter of copying material. Then this fork should be retired. Incidentally, the phrase "southern Levant" is popular in archaeology but much less in history, as you can check by searching for it at Scholar. It is inappropriate to use it for historically recent events. Zero^talk 04:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I performed exactly that review vs. History of Palestine prior to submitting this AfD. I do not believe there is a single piece of material which is covered in this article that can usefully be merged into History of Palestine - the latter article already includes all the quality information within this article. The other articles (eg History of Israel) arguably have slightly different scopes, and I would have thought we only need one article to ensure no work is lost.

Out of interest, how does retiring differ from delete+redirect?

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge them all -- As nom says, we have multiple articles covering the same subject. The use of the terms Israel and Palestine is liable to produce all sorts of POV issues. In dealing with the 20th century, there is probably no NPOV solution, but there is no reason for multiple articles for the preceding period. If anything the Palestine article has the better structure with plenty of cross-references (via main and see also templates) to more detailed articles on particular periods, etc. On the other hand, the present article has found a NPOV title. I suspect that Palestine is the primary article and all the rest are POV forks, but Palestine is cognate with Philistine, which raises difficult issues over the existence of ancient Israel

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:46, 10 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quillan Roberts[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested at WP:UND on the grounds that he has signed but not played for Toronto FC, has received coverage, and played a pre-season friendly against Liverpool, and based on the age of the article. The age of an article has no bearing whatsoever on notability. The coverage he has received appears to all be routine sports journalism, mostly match reports and player bios. WP:NSPORT excludes both friendly matches and players who have not played in competitive matches. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON and so if a user wants to step forward, we could move it to their user space until the subject meets notability guidelines. It shouldn't remain in main space until such time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roberts easily meets WP:GNG with national media coverage. For example [7] which is a long feature article on him, from almost 2 years ago, in Canada's largest mainstream national newspaper; the article was from Canada Press, and was carried that day in many large local and regional papers across the nation. There's other mainstream articles such as [8] [9]. Previously had received international media attention for a stunning goal (Roberts is a keeper) he scored against England in a U-17 World Cup match [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I admit that media coverage for much of the last 2 years hasn't been met WP:GNG but older coverage does. And I ask you ... can you name an MLS player who has sat on the bench for more league matches, and doesn't have a minute of playing time? Nfitz (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so he got a bit of hype a few years ago when he was heralded as "the next big player" - big whoop, happens all the time, nothing but WP:ROUTINE. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, is not notable as a player yet. GiantSnowman 18:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- International news coverage over a 1-year period with multiple feature articles, is not WP:Routine. Even national news coverage of TFC signings of Academy players isn't routine. That's why there are no article for Manny Aparicio (nor should there be yet). Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer coverage of any kind is routine sports journalism, and the signing of an academy player to the first team even more so. The international coverage he has received consists entirely of match reports which is equally routine. This has been a long standing consensus at WP:FOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there has been consensus about this at WP:FOOTY. Last I recall it went the other way if the articles were about the players - do you have a reference? 5 sentences about a transfer might be routine. A long feature article at the time of a transfer, or something spectacular or unusual that happened in a game and is focused on the player rather than being a routine match report, is not routine. Gosh, when was the last time YOU saw much of anything about a particular TFC player in the Globe and Mail (other than huge mega signings like Bradley or DeRosario ... or that Brit whose names escapes me) - it's not like they report on the sport very often, compared to the bigger sports ... let alone have a feature on a signing. Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL. References are routine. Optimism remains between the posts for TFC is the only one that could be considered non-routine. Refs don't pass the "significant coverage" clause of WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not pass "significant coverage". WP:GNG notes that "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Not only is that article more than a passing mention, he IS the main topic of the source material. Surely then it more than passes "significant coverage". Nfitz (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league. No indication that he has received the level of coverage required by GNG. The "long article" noted above is significantly under 500 words and so would count as a stub on WP! The "outstanding goal" is an obvious example of WP:BLP1E. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage, in-depth interviews or articles, only WP:ROUTINE. Fenix down (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

500 words in a paper that doesn't carry much sports coverage - I'm sure your familiar with the Globe and Mail and their lack of much sports coverage, let alone a relatively unpopular sport like soccer. Nfitz (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. GNG doesn't weight sources like that, it merely requires significant reliable third party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe article is significant 3rd party coverage. The story is so significant it was carried by a national paper that doesn't carry much sports coverage, and even less coverage of minor sports like soccer! Though that's beside the point ... the point is, that it meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One article does not mean there is significant coverage, especially when it is only 500 words long, so no it doesn't really meet GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One wouldn't mean it was significant. However as I pointed out above there were many, and I referenced more than one. Nfitz (talk) 01:48, 15 January 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Social and Political Studies[edit]

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

Microstub. Fails WP: NSCHOOL and WP: GNG. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely fails WP:GNG and WP:nschool--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a graduate department of the University of the State of Rio de Janero, per website. Departments generally are regarded as non-notable. The fact that this is a barely coherent micro stub doesn't help the subject's case. Carrite (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual departments, faculties or schools of larger institutions are not generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 13 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Policy Forum Cambridge[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. Created by someone who has only worked on this article and related articles to this organisation. Out of the 10 sources, 6 are actually about the book The Political Thought of Tarique Rahman. Out of the remaining 4, 3 are primary sources giving us actually one third party source about this organisation. LibStar (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't get any indepth coverage from reliable sources, also seems to be a recently established organization. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:08, 14 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clash Of The Titans Gameshow[edit]

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

Non notable game show. Would A7, but gameshows do not appear to be covered, and doesn't appear to fall under A11 either --Mdann52talk to me! 13:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's simply not notable - no references... --みんな空の下 (トーク) 14:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely non notable. Safiel (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Levdr1lp / talk 14:43, 12 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Kronenberg[edit]

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

I am dubious about this guy's notability. The references seem to be about his company rather than him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He is a patent writer, inventor, and author. He directly works in the revival of Detroit along with Josh Linkner and Dan Gilbert. In fact, the same building. He is a VC of note in the Detroit area. I thought this was a good jumping point for any person looking for information on Sandy Kronenberg. It is one area they can go to for several direct links. --Rachel Polant 13:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel Polant (talk • contribs)
Weak Delete. Apart from a few independent references about him no such notabitlity is there. Still not sure whether [16] should be counted or not. Europa man (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XRCO Award[edit]

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

Awards within the porn industry sourced only to XRCO (X-Rated Critics Organization, the organisation that awards them), thus failing the general notability guidelines about having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though the article sources are blocked on my network it is obvious that they aren't 3rd party and show no proof of notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that at least some of the websites now referenced on the page in question here are "blocked on your network" due to your apparent underage status my young friend. :) Guy1890 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You're kidding me right? A simple Google search demonstrates that this is indeed a well-known and significant award cermony. WP:Notability states under the "Article content does not determine notability" section: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. You should have tried PROD instead of an AfD to give me more time to edit it. I agree that the article is poorly written, but it can be improved and I'll begin working on it now. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Give you more time? You're kidding me right? The article has been around for more than seven years and still has no sources... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have only been editing on WP for about a year, not seven, but now that you've brought this article's sourcing to my attention I will begin working on it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a source to the article, but it seems to be some sort of press release about an upcoming event, and was published in a trade magazine. WP:GNG says that mention in independent sources presumes notability, but doesn't guarantee it. In my experience it takes multiple mentions in mainstream media, that is not pure trade publications, for establishing notability. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several sources so far, not just one, and I'm not done yet. You'll know when I'm finished because I'll remove the "under construction" template from the article once I'm done. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: XRCO Awards is a WP:SPINOFF of X-Rated Critics Organization because of WP:TOOBIG. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a content fork but not because the other article being too big, since X-Rated Critics Organization is a very short article, only ~4KB. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you'd prefer to merge the page in question here to the XRCO main page? Note: The two pages combined would currently be at least 48KB in size, and the XRCO Award page is only going to continue to grow in size as time goes on. Guy1890 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The XRCO Award is to the Adult industry what the Golden Globe Award (and other "not as famous as the Oscars") are to Hollywood. This is a ludicrous attempt to undermine all of the pornography related articles on the site. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note: The article in question here has been heavily edited at this point, not that AfD should be used for cleanup at all. There are some more inline citations needed in this article now, but almost all of the needed info for those citations are now listed in the "External links" section of the article.

The XRCO Awards are one of the most major & well-known adult film awards in the USA. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles link to the XRCO Award Wikipedia page at this late date, but I'm sure that it's a very large number. These awards (and many notations on who exactly won a bunch of the specific awards from several past award ceremonies) have been mentioned in at least 5 different books, the Los Angeles Times, the The Philadelphia Inquirer, and a few of the relevant trade magazines for the adult industry (like AVN & XBIZ), which would have no real reason to cover other adult film award ceremoies except their clear relevance to the adult industry. The XRCO Awards have also been around for almost 30 years now, unlike some of the other adult award ceremonies.

How can one be deemed to likely be notable if one has been voted into the XRCO Hall of Fame (under the recently-revised PORNBIO standard) and then say, at the same time, that the XRCO Awards themselves aren't notable?

In any event, see the last time that someone tried to delete a major adult film award ceremony. I'm sorry, but this is just not going to fly. Guy1890 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree completely with Scalhotrod, Rebecca1990 and Guy1890. Sure the article itself is weak, but so are a lot of others on Wikipedia and eventually people work on them and improve them. I've been collecting info on XRCO Awards the last few months myself and hope to work on that page in the future, but there are several other pages I'm in the middle of right now and prefer to complete that first. But there's no doubt that while there are a lot of meaningless adult film awards, the XRCOs aren't one of them. Scalhotrod said it best: The AVNs and XRCOs are the industry's equivalents to the Oscars and the Golden Globes. (And actually, I think they warrant an individual page for each year's awards, just like the Oscars, Golden Globes and AVNs.) Pumik9 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hansel and Gretel in 3D[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This film has been up for deletion twice now. In one AfD it was outright deleted and in the other it was moved into the incubator. The film was moved back to the mainspace last month and while I was tempted to move it back into the incubator, there's a very serious problem here with coverage in that the film hasn't actually received any coverage since Febrary 2012. Basically, it looks like it's been about two years since anyone has actually reported on this film and I honestly don't think that this is going to get made. It would've been awesome if it had, but this looks like one of countless films that almost got made but never got beyond some initial buzz. I really don't think that this would be worth moving back into the incubator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia Is Not A Crystal Ball The article says "as of 2012" production has been stalled. It's 2014 now. Delete this article and let it be created once (and if) the film is actually released. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with 1000's of other proposed films this one seems to have stalled. The article can easily be restored should production actually begin. If the vote is to keep it then the article could use some cleanup as the lede and the production section are almost identical and there is no need to read the same info twice in such a short article. MarnetteD | Talk 01:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has four citations to reliable sources that cover the topic, plus a search gave me further sources here, here and here. AfD is not cleanup, and having something unreleased is not a reason to delete per se - see Smile (The Beach Boys album) for a good example of how an unreleased product can be notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, we need a lot of coverage to show that an unreleased, unmade project is notable and all we have are articles that all essentially say the same thing: that the film would get made and that someone was interested in purchasing it. We have nothing that shows that this got beyond some initial planning. Even if some work did get started, we have nothing to prove that what little production occurred is actually noteworthy. I get that sometimes unreleased projects can become notable, but I don't think that this is one of those exceptions because of the extremely limited coverage that this received. We need more than what we have now to show that this would be one of those rare exceptions to the never released rule. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is two of the citations are from 2010 and one from 2011 so they are more than a little out-of-date. the last one only mentions the sale of rights to various countries. It says nothing about any actual filming. MarnetteD | Talk 17:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. It seems a splash was made in February 2012 when distribution rights were sold [17][18] (someone got rich with pre-sales), but my own sense it it stalled when Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters was filmed and released. Let it be recreated or undeleted when we have more toward actual production. If someone wishes to write of it in related articles (producer or production company) AND source it, that would be fine. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeet hakam[edit]

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

I don't believe this passes GNG or the notability criteria for musicians. The person appears to have only self-released material on youtube, and internet searches reveal his youtube channel and facebook page. He does not appear to have received substantial third-party coverage. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. Fails WP:PEOPLE & WP:MUSBIO. Europa man (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim to notability. FailsWP:MUSBIO.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NPASR. —Darkwind (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Novim[edit]

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

Really a G11, but since it was accepted at AfC I bring it here. A purely promotional article, claiming credit for everything done by anyone working on any of their projects. DGG ( talk ) 10:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. Sources to establish WP:NONPROFIT not found. -- 101.119.14.134 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where I wrote anything that the organization was "claiming credit for everything done by anyone working on any of their projects". Can someone suggest edits on that? The article discusses projects done by the organization, the people involved in those projects and the people involved in the organization. The projects were significant, the BEST study was discussed in national venues. This was my first WP article so if this is somehow promotional I would like to know how I can edit it to conform to WP standards.--Keithacarlson (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Daniel (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that there's some editing here that needs to be done - but this clearly looks like a notable organization, from the number of times it's referenced by other sources. And, it appears that the article was well-written and sourced - but there are parts that need a more objective, less dramatic tone. There are some things readily apparent that I'll try.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I made edits to the article and it still needs more work to show how their work is used for public policy and change (i.e., to Daniel's point a study is interesting but that in itself does not make it notable)... specifically by showing how governmental and non-governmental organizations have used the information. I am happy to do that if the article is kept.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:16, 9 January 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, Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the issues here is the notability of Novim's projects vs Novim itself. The first two projects have gained notability through coverage in independent sources. But I've found very little in independent RS about the organization itself. According to WP:NOTINHERITED, notability of the projects doesn't confer notability upon the sponsoring institution. The other issue is conflict of interest. There is a Keith Carlson who is Technical Director of Novim who is likely the author of the article. Creating an article about an organization in which one has a financial stake is a conflict of interest, per WP:COI. The apparent non-notability of Novim itself, the promotional nature of the article and the conflict of interest lead me to suggest deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mark viking: I'm a bit confused, which could be because I just need to understand the related guidelines better:
  - If the article has been edited to remove promotional content and is properly cited, why does it matter if Mr. Carlson first brought it to Wikipedia? (This would help me, because I review a lot of new articles, should I nominate articles for deletion, rather than try to copyedit them, if it clearly appears to be a WP:COI issue?)
    - In some cases, a COI does play a role in deletion. For instance, in speedy deletion via WP:G11, COI could help make the case that the article was unambiguously promotional. For AfD, you're correct that COI by itself is not a reason for deletion. But COI's effects--a non-neutral POV and promotional prose--do play a role in deletion. Non-notability of Novim is the reason I suggested deletion. I noted the inadvertent/undisclosed COI as a warning to other editors that this article bears close scrutiny; it has framed my perception of the article. Promotional articles with COI origins can be rescued, but notability would need to be established first. --Mark viking (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good points. I'm not sure how many new users are aware that COI is an issue (unless the article is tagged, etc.) and that it's incumbent upon them to declare it, but I see your points.
  - I'm trying to extrapolate the points about the studies being notable - but not the organization. Would that mean that instead of having one Novim article, it could be better to have 2 articles about the first 2 studies?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's right--if a project has had enough impact that multiple independent reliable sources have discussed the project in depth, one could in principle write an article that would withstand an AfD test. This is no different than the relation between notable work being done by a professor and the department where they work. The Nobel prize winning work in physics done by David Gross is notable, but this confers no notability upon either the Kavli institute or Novim. --Mark viking (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - In this case, since purpose of the organization was to create the studies and then communicate study findings, I guess I'm not quite computing this part, but that's ok. It's a consensus driven process, so I'll be interested to see the final voting and decision. Thanks for addressing both points thoroughly!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MVRS(Muzzle Velocity Radar System)-3000[edit]

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

Non-notable product, virtually no independent coverage found via Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The equipment exists, but it has not been written about in sufficient breadth or depth in reliable sources to meet inclusion criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur is not overly notable. There are several other systems that do the same task. If anything we need a general page on the subject of Muzzle velocity radar systems. N.b I am 'involved' as I messaged the page/s creator regarding what appeared to be cut & paste moves. 220 of ^Borg 10:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Mallet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Antoine Mallet (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as the Venus Award is not a "well-known and significant industry award". Internet search located no sources which would indicate he passes WP:GNG Finnegas (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article contains no reliably sourced content. The cited source does not even mention Mallet, and does not in any way confirm the award claim. I can't even find a reliable source for the claim that the Venus Awards even included a "Best Gay Actor" category; the english-language Gsearch results are pretty much limited to wiki sites and wikimirrors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the Venus Awards are, in fact, "a well-known and significant industry award", there is currently no good citation for the claimed 2001 award of "Best Gay Actor" that I am aware of at this time. This article appears to me to have been copied from another Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I searched the Wayback Machine for the Venus Award citation that was removed. I found this from 2010 apparently confirming the award win. The Venus Award is a notable enough award for PORNBIO. Is German Adult News a reliable enough source? • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent question. The website is in a language that I don't speak and searching for "German Adult News" at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard archives gives me an error ("An error has occurred while searching: The search backend returned an error") at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid a rather questionable source apparently confirming the award win does not indicate notability. Finnegas (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the great difficulty we're having in even verifying the fact of a relatively recent award is pretty much a demonstration that it fails the "well-known/significant" standard for awards, especially given the absence of evidence that the award category was recognized by the award-giver in any other year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary successor to the Venus Awards was the Eroticline Awards, which indeed gave out a "Best Gay Actor" award at the same festival that the Venus Awards are held at each year. What we're really running into is trying to verify the reliability of a website that's in a language (German) that apparently no one in this thread can speak fluently. Guy1890 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has hit the nail on the head with his comment above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 18 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Sood[edit]

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

Article relies on primary sources or non notable sources. Article seems to promote subject than an encyclopedic content. Itsalleasy (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure why you say this? The article is covered with reliable sources. The man addressed to General Assembly of the UN and is a global health expert cited worldwide, all covered in references. --BiH (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the notability. The reliable sources only mention him in passing; the more detailed mentions are more in line with college yearbook bios, or are promotional in nature. It's not quite clear from the opening sentence what it is he does, or is notable for. The opening sentence appears to be asserting his notability rather than proving it: "a known global health expert" - known to whom? A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. He appears to be an academic involved in some student publications, and has assisted in some conferences. I'm not seeing anything significant. The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article - and it was created by a single purpose account. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The man addressed to General Assembly of the UN (official UN document: [19]) and is a global expert on sustainable development cited worldwide (mentions in serveral books: [20] ; mentioned in various papers: [21]). Recently, he curated TEDxUNPlaza event, hosted by the UN. All of this is covered in references. In my opinion, nominating the article for deletion was an act of bad intention (not to mention is was not done properly by the nominator, so I did not take it seriously). --BiH (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with SilkTork's analysis. As for the arguments given just above by BiH: addressing the UN only makes someone notable if this address was noted (i.e., written about) by independent reliable sources. The book references are nothing substantial (an acknowledgement, for example; the first book that pops up may or may not refer to this person). The Google Scholar results are very revealing: several publications pop up. None of the publications by Kunal Sood seem to have been cited even a single time. To pass WP:ACADEMIC#1, one generally needs a thousand citations or so. In short, no indication that this passes WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. As an aside, please refrain from personal attacks on the nom. That the nom had some technical problems is not too surprising as the process is not easy (advice: use Twinkle) and in any case, that has been remedied and is completely irrelevant to this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The low-quality sources with which the article is padded are not good enough for WP:GNG and I did not find better ones elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple passing mentions do not somehow eventually total up to substantive coverage. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 04:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aetrium[edit]

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

No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Aetrium is publicly-traded, this is not generally accepted as enough to preserve notability according to WP:LISTED. What little coverage in third-party sources is available mostly concerns stock prices and valuation or routine corporate communications that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The only non-routing coverage concerns a recently-concluded proxy fight that ousted the previous management of the company. If this were a person, it would be a WP:BLP1E. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:38, 18 January 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. I have considered the redirect option, but there is no consensus for it, runs counter to normal practice for redirects, and the suggested target article does not cover it beyond it being in the "External links" section. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualMalaysia.com[edit]

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

fails WP:NWEB. I could find no indepth coverage. for example looking at Malaysia's biggest English language newspaper. [22] LibStar (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 06:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find these sometimes silly - virtualmalaysia.com is the official website of an organisation. The organisation has a wikipedia page - then that is the place to report the website (it is generally listed as the official homepage, and all information about what the organisation represents is there as well on the wikipedia page). No need to have also a wikipedia page for the website, that is just a form of extra promotion of the website. In principle: merge into the mainpage, practically: delete (no redirect, that would help the promotion of the website, and is utterly unnecessary). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Dirk Beetstra, the existing page Ministry of Tourism (Malaysia) says all that need be said about the organisation, and there is no call for a separate page on their website. Let's hope they are not themselves responsible for this piece of pointless spamming. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Chiswick Chap, it appears differently - see note below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Spam WikiProject discussions --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, but it seems our !votes are correct. I've added the link to the tourism ministry's webpage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ministry of Tourism (Malaysia). Fails WP:WEB fairly comprehensively, as outlined above, but redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't matter how cheap it is, organisations should not be using Wikipedia to advertise their websites. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder whether this would be a 'reasonable' redirect - is this something that people would search for on Wikipedia and hence should be redirected, or should it just come up in the search results in the Search engine of Wikipedia - I vote for the latter. No redirect. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they, if they were looking for tourist information or for the tourist ministry? No, it's just the name of an advertising website, not a sensible search term. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 18 January 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. Discussion on a possible name change for this article should take place on the article's talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Anthony Mobley[edit]

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

Just your garden variety executed murderer who fails WP:CRIME. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is one unusual fact not mentioned in the article which might provide some notability: at his trial, Mobley's lawyers tried to argue that he had a genetic disposition to violent behaviour. This has been reported in various sources, over a long period of time.[23][24][25] I've now mentioned this in the article, including the claim that it is "Perhaps the most widely cited case in which defence lawyers used genetic factors in the defence of their client".[26] But further editing would be good to bring out the importance of the case. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The nominator was not incorrect to make this nomination, especially since the article was originally a verbatim copy of a web page at the county prosecutor's office. On looking into Colapeninsula's links, however, it became clear that this subject is definitely notable. I have completely-re-written the article and provided numerous sources that are substantial and reliable. See the complete list of references. It is actually impressive to me the breadth of interest in this subject, not only national and international news coverage such as Time and The Independent, but also articles in law review journals and scientific journals and chapters in psychology textbooks. A lot of fields are interested in the genetic defense argument that Mobley's attorneys raised. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Should this be renamed Mobley v. State? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow close. The consensus here seems to be pretty clear that this book doesn't pass notability guidelines. Given that this is the second time the article has been created in a short period of time, I'm going to WP:SALT as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failing Man[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:NBOOK. I cannot find significant discussion of this book in reliable sources. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 04:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously fails WP:NBOOK, WP:NPOV ProtossPylon 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails WP:NBOOK, no coverage in any Google-searchable sources. Latest additions to the page show that it's a self-published work, and the reviews appear to be personal correspondence from the author's friends. I don't think it meets criterion A11 for speedy deletion, but I certainly don't think it warrants an article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. C.Fred (talk) nailed it with the most recent edits appearing to be reviews of personal friends of the author of the book/article. Completely unreferenced, and does not even attempt to establish WP:NBOOK. —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia Ice Hockey Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No evidence of notability, and the article is riddled with speculation and inaccuracies -- for instance, unrecognized by the IIHF or by the government, by what authority does this "federation" claim to govern ice hockey in Indonesia? No sources proffered. Article prodded, but deprodded by the creator with the edit summary "You can't proposed articles for deletion! >:()" Ravenswing 03:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete not even an official organisation and Indonesia does not compete internationally in ice hockey. this text from the article says it all "e association is not recognized in its own country. They have been waiting on the paperwork from the government. Bureaucracy is very complicated in a country, but the association press forward by sending there ice hockey players routinely to international competitions so they can get recognized by the government". LibStar (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 06:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 06:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The lack of any official recognition by the government is bad enough, but the lack of any reliable sources out there is adequate to warrant deletion, albeit possibly not a speedy one. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 12:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage for this organisation even from unreliable sources let alone reliable ones. The organisation is not an IIHF member. If they ever do attain the status of an official governing body, then we can revisit whether an article is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Whpq said, we can always come back to it if they ever gain notability. ÞórrÓðinnTýr ^Eh? 17:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Melt - While normally organizations like these have automatic notability per WP:NSPORT, this one is not even recognized by the sports' main federation! Also, virtually no coverage. No prejudice against recreation if/when the organization receives recognition. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unrecognized federation of dubious legitimacy. No reliable sources. Reso lute 23:34, 13 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Rossiter[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT still... JMHamo (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. A Google News search finds over 200 articles, including features articles about him. Nfitz (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of it being routine news coverage JMHamo (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sure ... most, but not all. And not all of 200 articles is significant enough for GNG. Nfitz (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, has not played in a fully professional league or senior international football. No significant in depth coverage, just the usual brief coverage of a young player yet to play in a significant match. Fenix down (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that may be the case. But where are you folks who vote delete based on brief coverage, when there's very clear evidence of significant international features articles, such as in the AFDs for Jack Wilshere previously, and Quillan Roberts‎ Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Nfitz:, you may wish to refresh your knowledge of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that Quillian Roberts is also at AfD suggests that at least one other editor thinks that there is not the significant level of coverage you claim. Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see no need for mentioning WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ... I simply wondered where all these people who argue that a player doesn't meet WP:GNG are when they remain silent for cases where WP:GNG is very clearly met; I certainly wasn't invoking that here. There are editors here, who will 100% ignore meeting WP:GNG if they don't meet WP:FOOTYN. The classic case being some who are participating in this debate, voting to delete Jack Wilshere's page shortly before his Arsenal debut, despite being featured in hundreds of long international newspaper stories. I don't think there's ever been a more clear case of a player meeting WP:GNG yet failing WP:FOOTYN, and yet some ignore process and only care about WP:FOOTYN. Nfitz (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 19:32, 13 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Smith (economics)[edit]

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

No evidence that he meets WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. He is an adjunct associate professor, with minimal Google Scholar citations (as far as I can tell; search needs qualifying because of his very common name) and little to no coverage by Independent Reliable Sources. MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Instructors are almost never satisfy WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible to be notable for teaching but the article doesn't present adequate evidence for it, nor for passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like he's pretty good at his job but that's not a notability criteria. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dong han Kang[edit]

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

Sources are misleading, and do not appear to meet WP:BLP standards. The article is lacking in verifiable info, and instead contains large blocks of promotional silliness. Reads more like a badly proof-read press release than an article. Appears to be vanity project. Web search finds absolutely nothing usable to support notability. Perhaps someone who speaks Mandarin or Korean can find reliable sources, but I seriously doubt it. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see WP:BASIC or WP:GNG, nothing to establish notability of the person. Since this is WP:BLP it needs to be strictly verifiable to merit inclusion, so what's left is blank article about a topic for which no one can establish proper notability. Manager of a possibly notable organization isn't notable. Also "CHARITY MAGAZINE" (stop yelling) isn't a detailed enough ref for AGF to force me to believe it. common sense say this is promotion. aside from shanghaibang.net, whatever that is, the only other ref is the website for the company that the article is mostly about. It should set off a few red flags that the article was created and written by a blocked single-purpose account called "Shijingsteel", the name of the company the article is mostly about. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe shanghaibang.net is a Korean-language news site about China. Like I said, it's possible there is an actual source on there, but I don't know how to find it, and the link to the front of the site makes me skeptical. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is simply an unreferenced biography of living person, and as such needs to be deleted under WP:BLP. I say "unreferenced" because the sources that are cited ether do not even mention the subject or are not detailed enough to verify. Beside that, the article is pure wp:promotion and almost certailny an wp:autobiography. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is written by himself. He is owner of Shijingsteel in Shanghai, China. Please, look at the editing history. The first editor's id is shijingsteel. I'm Korean and I can speak Mandarin Chinese. And I'm now in Shanghai. You can trust me. By the day, I made this page yesterday blank. I cannot understand English Wikipedia's rule. I'm really sorry about that. --Philobiblic (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Camacho[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Into the Rift (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Into the Rift (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - completely non-notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for MMA fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely A. Warren[edit]

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

Not all so notable. "First black woman mayor of Rochester." Kind of straining. Maybe in 1974 but not today, 40 years later. Spitzer clerk but just for the "summer", which sounds pretty cursory. Citations are mostly handouts and local cruft except for slight mention in Buffalo paper, down the street from Rochester. While beside the point for Afd, not sufficiently edited either. Lots of cruft, WP:POV. Would be a pretty small article without trivia and hype and WP:BOOSTER campaign notes. Just seems insufficiently notable. Note template which gives additional links "for nothing."Student7 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Elected mayor of a city of more than 200,000 people, with plenty of news coverage, is notable. Clean up the boosterish text and keep it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is the mayor of a major upstate city. Bring the first African-American female mayor in city history is a big deal. The upper half of the page gives insight into her political history and education before reaching this point. It's Rochester so there is going to be more local coverage than national coverage. The first citation provides a good insight into her past which is why I chose it. There is only so much editing you can do with this kind of article. There is no "hype" about this article. I talk about the election due to it's historic nature in that all the polls were wrong.--Mo2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos XXX antiuser ^eh? 05:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per views expressed above by Arxiloxos & Mo2010. Finnegas (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Elected mayor of a city of more than 200,000 people. Enos733 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Elected mayor of a city of more than 200,000 people. Elected mayor of the third largest city in New York State. Request for deletion of this article smacks of a feeling of Damnatio memoriae on the part of the Student7 because she's a black woman who won an election. Kusovski (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please WP:AGF. I have close relatives that are African American and descendants and in-laws that are hyphenated Americans. Most of my Afds have been aimed at white guys with similar minimal qualification.

WP:NPOL says 'Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".' "Significant" coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is what is clearly lacking. Cities with a million people, nor 10 million, do not have mayors that are automatically notable. Commenters have made assumptions here that are unwarranted under the WP:BIO guideline.

I am concerned about the steady degradation of qualifications for notability that allows people of lesser attainments to rate an article. Student7 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "steady degradation of qualifications" on evidence here. WP:OUTCOMES: "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). Note that this criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors." The near-unanimity of opinion here speaks to the accuracy of this distillation of consensus as to mayors. Your phrase "lesser attainments" appears to be a value judgment, not an accurate summary of the substantial coverage available here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above she's the first African-American female elected mayor of a NY city, in Upstate NY, which makes it slightly more notable due to the more rural character of Upstate. There's an entire article devoted to African-American firsts. I think she's notable enough to warrant an article of some length. I don't think we need to write a enormous biography of everything she ever did in her life. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have an African American specialist of whom I think a lot. One of my best doctors. I suspect her attainments are above Ms. Warren's. They are not political, however. I would not write a bio on her even if she were the first African American woman (whatever) under 5 feet six inches. The qualifications for "first" become somewhat absurd as well.

I have lived in several areas with a overwhelming white population. We have, on a number of occasions, selected African Americans as leaders. We didn't do it self-consciously. "Gosh! Another blow for Equal Rights." But instead looked for the person with the best credentials, which they had. Rochester has an African American population of 41%. Hardly surprising that they would elect someone African American on occasion. As in most places, women outnumbered men 10:9. Not too surprising that they might elect a woman occasionally. They have been voting Democratic since 1974 and maybe before that. So nomination as the Democratic candidate is tantamount to election.

To become nominated in this city of 200,000, a major deal to editors of these articles, she obtained less than 9,000 votes. http://www2.monroecounty.gov/files/2013Primary%20Election%20Cert.pdf. Not what I would term a smashing mandate.

If the underlying threshhold for notability for a general article is "9,000 votes," there should be a lot of articles on hundreds of thousands of local politicians from around the world. Student7 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep She ran in a primary against an incumbent mayor that was heavily backed by the democratic party with alot of money behind him and a well established administration that originally belonged to the lieutenant governor Robert Duffy when he was mayor from 2006 to 2010 who did not want her to run and won. The incumbent mayor was also a former CEO of the local power utility which made him a millionaire. She beat a lot of money to win this election. I am not taking about this as as a african american rights thing, I am talking about this as as a person who was able to defeat a heavily established and funded administration to win. Something that rarely happens in politics. Dhe also happens to be the first women mayor which is important in that she is the first.

Also she is of note due to the fact that she is the mayor in the 3rd largest city in the state which has much importance. She could have been elected by one vote, She is still the mayor of an important city both in history in currently. Her background is important for the same reason it is for other politicians where the article goes though their past political and educational history.

ALL Rochester mayors have been well documented up until now. For evidence look at the page of Robert Duffy (politician) the original mayor of the last administration. Mike Spano of Yonkers, Stephanie Miner of Syracuse both have pages despite their cities being even smaller than Rochester. Warren is an important figure for these reasons alone in the grand scheme of things. Mo2010 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 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.