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 Galabin_Boevski#The_White_Prisoner. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The white prisoner[edit]

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

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

Cannot see this book having any notability independant of its subject. Title is unsuitable for simply turning into a redirect. Risks becoming a POV fork of the existing biog. TheLongTone (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing any mainstream, reliable, independent reviews. Ping me if such sources are added and I'll revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing the new sources, the coverage seems good, through I cannot verify it myself. AGF abstaining from this discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think that the issue here is that the book was never actually released in English, only Bulgarian. Once I started searching in Bulgarian (using Google Translate) I started finding quite a bit of results. Problem is, I don't speak/read Bulgarian, so I'm going to try to find someone who does so they can really do something with the sources I'm pulling into the page. Offhand I'd say that if this doesn't pass muster for an individual entry, it would merit a mention on the athlete's page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Galabin_Boevski#The_White_Prisoner with history. I found some sources, but I can't really tell how in-depth they are or how many of them are really usable. Some of them definitely look to be by Bulgarian newspapers, but I can't really tell which ones. Because of that and because I can't really seem to easily find a Bulgarian speaker (the WP seems to be dead), I would recommend leaving the history intact for when/if someone who is fluent can find enough sourcing to merit an individual entry. If someone can find this before the AfD is over, I'd be willing to change my "vote" to a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article creator left the following on my talkpage, thought it belonged here:

Here is a brief list of sources with their internet editions, who are reviewing the book, they are on Bulgarian language

Bulgarian national newspapers: 24 hours: [1], Monitor: [2] Trud: [3]Duma: [4]

TV- Here is interview with the author of the book Ognian Georgiev at the morning show of Nova TV – one of the national TV stations in Bulgaria on 11 January. Starting from 54 minute.[5]

Radio-Here is interview with the author at the national “Darik” radio station with one of the most popular radio announcers Nikolay Kantchev. Here the author was asked if he plans to translate and to Publish the book in Portugal and he answered that probably first it will be published in Germany, because Boevski competed in a German club years ago. [6]

The book is published in Bulgaria just 20 days ago after the huge interest of the arrest and sentence of the Olympic champion Boevski 2 years ago, which was noticed by the news around the world from Europe to New Zealand

Unless this book provokes a wider political scandal I don't see that this coverage is independant of the subject matter, and the notability of book 20 days old ...too soon.TheLongTone (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Galabin_Boevski. Can always be broken out again if size becomes an issue.  The Steve  05:08, 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) 00:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Academy of Diplomacy[edit]

European Academy of Diplomacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The last AFD was improperly close. I don't understand how the closing admin, User:SarahStierch, could've concluded that my nom, one vote to delete and one comment leaning towards it constitute no consensus. Anyway: self-sourced organization, clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) as written. Entry is clearly promotional (author: SPA European Academy of Diplomacy (talk · contribs))... Pinging User:Emilyharris and User:Bluerasberry who participated in thart prior AFD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article makes no claim about its subject which satisfies criteria described in WP:N. In addition to this, all presented sources are self-published by the subject of the article. It may be the case that good sources for the subject of this article may exist in a language other than English, but I have not done any non-English searches. I did a general Google search and a Google News search and saw nothing which looked like a reliable source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 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) 00:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Gernat[edit]

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

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

Non-notable minor league hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator. No prejudice against recreation should the player do the things needful to achieve notability. Ravenswing 23:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect to 2012–13 Edmonton Oilers season. A quick search for sources demonstrates he passes GNG. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (37-plus in the last three days alone) makes it impossible to fully research all of the articles to prove they meet GNG. Expecting any editor to properly research this large number of articles for GNG sources is not realistic or fair, especially when one considers that most of these AfDs require searching non-English sources. Going straight to AfD with this many nominations, without first using PRODs or appropriate tagging, is disruptive. The nom should be reminded that deletion is a last resort, and per WP:BEFORE should only be used after other alternatives have been fully explored. Dolovis (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As far as alleged sources that meet the GNG are concerned, if you've indeed found some, why didn't you add them to the article? (And if such sources exist, why would a redirect possibly be an appropriate action to take, never mind to a team season article in which year the subject didn't play professional hockey, let alone for the team in question?)

  That being said, as many as a hundred articles go to AfD every day, and no one expects any editor to research all of them on the spot; happily, since these are Wikipedia's articles, and do not "belong" to any one editor, there's no onus on any one person to do so. What is seriously disruptive is creating so many BLP articles without even a cursory attempt at proper sourcing. Perhaps, rather than creating yet more NN sub-stubs, you could turn your attention to that. Ravenswing 06:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hockeybuzz and Hockey's Future? Good lord... if you're going there for sources, Dolovis, you're in trouble. If you know of the existence of sources that make this a GNG pass, why didn't you put them in when creating the article, eh? Resolute 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search doesn't turn up any sources that meet GNG. He fails NHOCKEY. And that redirect is plain ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Former member of the Slovakia men's national junior ice hockey team, where he participated in two junior world championships. I think that fits NHOCKEY 1 or 2. Not sure if that would be considered amateur or professional, but it is certainly the highest possible level at his age. There are sources for this.  The Steve  05:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It does not qualify under NHOCKEY's criteria, which does not include tournament teams other than the senior World Championships and the Olympics. Playing at the "highest level for his age" has never been part of the criteria. Ravenswing 11:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As Ravenswing mentions international play is covered under #6 which requires he plays on a senior team, not a junior team. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. None of the leagues are considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Can be re-created if he ever does meet the guidelines. Patken4 (talk) 21:10, 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 redirect to History of the Jews in South Africa. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish population of South Africa[edit]

Jewish population of South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No other such article about Jewish population in a certain country exists, and the article "History of the Jews in South Africa" addresses everything. In addition, the information in this article isn't backed up by any sources at all, and I can't even seem to find a single source for verification. Besides, the article has no structure and has been edited about 6 times since 2011. -Shalom11111 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to failure of WP:V. If sources are found, ping me, the topic may be notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per the above arguments, but perhaps keep a redirect to History of the Jews in South Africa. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per nominator's original suggestion atTalk:Jewish population of South Africa#Proposal to merge the article to History of the Jews in South Africa because this is useful FACTUAL information, reverse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse for excluding it. BUT then Keep it all by using

Jewish population of South Africa based on 2011 census

(((Collapse|1= |2=Jewish population of South Africa based on 2001 census))). It is easy to find references for this, just see South African National Census of 2001 and South African National Census of 2011 (no one says those should be "deleted"!), then see Official census page; Statistics South Africa - CENSUS 2001 - Census in brief; Census 2011: Statistical release; Census 2011 Enumeration; Census 2011 Products; Statistics Act of 1999. User Shalom11111 (talk · contribs) would/should know how to do that technically, see his user page at User:Shalom11111, as well as his original suggestion at Talk:Jewish population of South Africa#Proposal to merge the article. IZAK (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Redirect to History of the Jews in South Africa Many of these places should be omitted, but the populations for places with meaningful Jewish communities should be shifted to the history article, where this information will add context to the article. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A useless article that fails to provide references let alone meaningful information. All other valid reasons for deletion have been stated by Shalom11111. Khazar (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• For those interested in a source, including @Piotrus: this link shows the most recent figures, which are from 2001. There aren't more updated figures available since the religion question wasn't asked in the 2011 census. I'm also not sure that they should be used to count the Jewish population, since it only considers Jews by religion while excluding Jewish people who are not religious for example.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:16, 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 redirect to Mizuki Nomura. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When Hikaru was on the Earth[edit]

When Hikaru was on the Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article currently is unreferenced, and as such does not assert notability, and does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or the more specific WP:BK. A cursory Google search of the original romanized title turned up blogs and various fan translations of the books and manga adaptation. Searching with the translated title turns up the same thing. Another search of the original Japanese title turns up blogs and retailers. 十八 22:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --十八 23:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --十八 23:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No English sources; needs an opinion from a Japanese speaker. Non-Japanese speakers like myself cannot adequately verify whether Japanese sources exist or not, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm afraid. I'm not a Japanese speaker (I can only understand very little Japanese), but from the search I made, all I could find were official sites, sites selling the novels and blogs. Light novels are dime-a-dozen in Japan, so it's normal for the majority of them to not receive a lot of coverage. The series does have a Japanese Wikipedia article, although they are a much more inclusive encyclopedia (essentially any series is notable to them) and they don't need much (sometimes, even any) sourcing to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Normally manga and anime works do not get articles here on Wikipedia unless they have been adapted into English or some other language as well, this is not to say that this is the case for everything but this is just an example of one being where there are no reliable sources to be found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This novel has Chinese and Korean version. See [7][8] - ひなどり(Hinadori) 18:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (in Japanese)
  • (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (in Chinese)
  • (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (in Korean)
• Redirect to Mizuki Nomura: This light novel was written by Mizuki Nomura, the author of Book Girl. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ero Manga Sensei - My Little Sister and the Locked Room. - ひなどり(Hinadori) 10:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Because I do not have enough time to pull up sources on why this is notable and prove it to English users. We have a major issue and A&M is revitalizing, but the necessary organization and fluency and ability to get the sources from the archives is simply not there yet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory[edit]

The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A fringe POV fork. This myth is already covered thoroughly in two extremely long sections in the article Khazars, in 1)Khazars#Judaism and 2)Khazar#Ashkenazi-Khazar'. The article's content can be found there and therefore the it is pointless. If this article isn't deleted for some reason, then these sections will have to be.

Important notes: The article which was created recently and is about a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. This belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") has been spread in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it. When I added some criticism about this theory in the Khazars article, it was removed and eventually moved to this page, however information promoting the theory was not moved or touched. So as I said, if this article isn't deleted, these two sections discussing it will have to be cut from the Khazars article and pasted here instead. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.

• DELETE this fork. Mangoe (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After further consideration I've decided I'm OK with this being split out. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP.
• The proposer’s argument has no merit because he is totally confused, WP:AGF is violated, and he makes accusations that raise serious doubts about his editorial integrity. His assertions about how this page was created are deceptive.

Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I haven't a clue how the theory could be used by anti-Semites, but such vile misuse should be dealt with directly, not by suppressing discussion of the questionable validity of an interesting theory, about which Arthur Koestler wrote a whole book. The two articles about Khazars mentioned concentrate on Khazars, not European Jews, so it is a very different emphasis. cwmacdougall 0:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not a fork. It does have titling problems. Extensive coverage of the topic shown in footnotes. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Proposer's argument is absurd and offensive. However, somewhere (not on this AFD board), the future of the article needs discussing. We don't normally make subarticles so it ought to be moved to the top level if the content is going to remain separate. Zero^talk 07:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Both the Ashkenazi Jews and Khazar article have been consistently destabilized by POV-editing on the issue of origins (by editors who appear to be disinterested in both topics. Controversy seduces. User:Shalom11111 (and User:Tritomex) want each page to 'prove' that 'science' knows all Ashkenazi are direct descendents of the Israelites. That is why a main page on the topic was created: they, others, and indeed myself, can examine and document every nook and cranny of this minor theory (much stability was created for Shakespeare articles by getting the proponents of Edward de Vere, Oxfordian theory to work specific pages). I calculate at a minimum that a fair survey of the history, its exponents, and the documentation (genetics) would run to 60/70kb. I'll certaintly get round to doing much of this. I am surprised that Shalom11111, who started this by creating a section headed 'Expansion needed', refuses to work the page now that he has all the room imaginable to thicken the text here.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did not "went there" to prove anything but to try to create an objective article from the POV pushing carried out there by Nishidani who is censoring all scientific and reliable sources which he believes could question the "Khazarian theory" (which btw do not have even a scientifically established name.)He also added (or participated in addition) of this theory in at least fore other articles: Genetic studies on Jews, Shlomo Sand, Invention of Jewish people and Ashkenazi Jews --Tritomex (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have just taken Shalom11111 to A/I for making false and injurious accusations. I suggest you either document these absurd charges or strike them out. In all the articles mentioned, I added relevant scholarly input, irrespective of the POV pushing, and have never removed, on principle, any good RS from wikipedia. I only add academic works to such articles, and you, Tritomex, consistently remove them, whatever their standing as reliable sources. That is the difference. Wikipedia is obligatorily bound to cover all relevant views. It does not promote a preferred slant on anything. That's policy. Read it.Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#User:Shalom11111:Incivility, slurs and accusations of antisemitism --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a notable theory and should have an own article. If it's about how antisemites and others can view an article, then we would have to remove articles such as Genetic studies on Arabs who only talk about genetic diseases in Arabs. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - It's a theory that should have its own article. Although it's terribly made, that has more to do with your effort to delete it rather than improve it. This article is a great idea considering how peaceful the Khazars page is compared to before. On another note, Shalom11111 should understand how crucial it is to keep POV-pushers such as himself from the Khazars article. As long as he lurks there, that page will never be a good/featured article. Khazar (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a very clearly notable theory. I'm surprised it has taken so long to have its own "stand alone" article. The subject has been widely debated ever since the publication of Koestler's book The Thirteenth Tribe. Has this theory been used by antisemites? Yes, but usually in the context of Biblical-literalist claims that Jews have a "right" to Israel by descent from Abraham (and thus no 'right' if they aren't his descendents). Koestler's own intention was to prove that Jews are not a "race", but a religious community, and thus to undermine antisemitism. But all this is beside the point. Wikipedia policy is clear. It is undeniably a notable topic, widely discussed in reliable sources. Paul B (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With papers being published fairly recently in succession by noted scholars, some supporting some refuting the theory, it obviously meets the notability criteria.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per cwmacdougall, Carrite, Paul B., et al. If we deleted everything that the haters could use, there would be little left here. We have lots of articles at WP:ODD and as allowed by WP:FRINGE. I think the article does a fairly good job of neutrality. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This theory is not inherently anti-semitic, therefore no reason to delete. Concur with Bearian. Bensci54 (talk) 03:53, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 00:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fellowes[edit]

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

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

Nothing here is notable: this is an advertisement for his services. Most oof the reverences are either incidental mentions or based on PR DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Keep For the following reasons I largely support keep: (a) The references include non-incidental coverage in RS sources like USA Today, VentureBeat, BusinessWeek, and the Huffington Post, [whether or not a publicist originally pitched the story idea to the journalists at question is irrelevant as long as it's not advertorial/bylined and the masthead is RS] (b) he's been acknowledged by Antonio Villaraigosa, Bill Clinton, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and, (c) [least important but bears mentioning] he has a doctorate. These three factors, in concert, don't fit the profile of most of the WP:BIO deletion requests that show up around here. That said, it is promotional in tone and feel. DocumentError (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like an ad. Feeble cites on GS. Having a doctorate contributes not one jot to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

In point of clarification, when I said "he has a doctorate" it was only to note that, taken in tandem with other facts, this entry does not meet the profile of the majority of vanity articles on WP and should be treated more gently than an open-and-shut case; not to suggest the holding of a Ph.D. should be a contributing factor to notability. DocumentError (talk) 20:22, 26 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) 00:25, 1 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,  Sandstein  20:35, 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. the keep reason has been shown to be an invalid chart Guerillero | My Talk 02:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Idol[edit]

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

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

not released any studio albums Stryn (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep (assuming a source is given). They reached the top 20 on Finland's singles chart passing wp:BAND on point 2. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what is the chart where it got a list position, but it's not a Finnish singles chart (there is no page http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/artistit/naked+idol). --Stryn (talk) 19:47, 26 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) 00:25, 1 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,  Sandstein  20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• comment Charts listed here. It seems likely that their chart positions are from Itunes music charts. Not sure how much stock you'll put in that... The Steve  06:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Finland ITunes Top 100 Rock Songs, never heard about it, so I can say it's not a famous chart at all in Finland. --Stryn (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are Apple's company charts, tracking downloads and sales on Itunes. They are not officially recognized charts, but they are used often as an indicator of sales and popularity, due to Apple's near-monopoly on digital sales.  The Steve  17:33, 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) 16:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Tichon[edit]

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

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

Non-notable media artist. Nothing in the Google search results shows notability. Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – no evidence of sufficient notability. C679 21:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC. ///EuroCarGT 22:30, 11 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,  Sandstein  20:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Papp[edit]

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

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

Is this house musician sufficiently notable? I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bio and four album reviews at Allmusic, more than a dozen album releases listed there. --Michig (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Allmusic is over inclusive, in my opinion; certainly I am not seeing any consensus that having a bio or reviews there is sufficient for notability. --Nlu (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment. On further thought, I think a problem with the "keep" argument that Michig is making is this: these lesser-known, independent-label musicians are effectively analogous to minor league athletes, who actually likely have hundreds more mainstream references in newspapers, TV, radio, &c. references, not only locally, but in national sources. Yet, a consensus judgment call has been made that not only are they not notable just based on those references, but they are presumptively not notable unless they make it to the majors, except in the cases of major coverage despite the not making it to the majors. WP:NMUSIC's "per se notable" criteria effectively serves as a "make it to the majors" analog, and while I consider them somewhat over inclusive, I'm not going to quibble with the consensus there. Yet when someone/some group doesn't make it on those criteria, I question how, in particular when the person/group does not draw coverage outside music publications, whether WP:GNG can be at all invoked. I'd consider them presumptively non-notable unless they make it to one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria. --Nlu (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Inclusion at AllMusic help a great deal towards establishing notability of Western musicians IMO. Along with Papp's bio & reviews on that site, there are other examples of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to be found e.g. [9][10][11][12][13]. Meets WP:NMUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 11:19, 10 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,  Sandstein  20:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - Just needs some more sources added to back up the unsourced information. Solid article, needing some work. ///EuroCarGT 22:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Between the Allmusic reviews and the refs provided by Sparklism, passes the notability bar for me. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:07, 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. The question was "notability". The references cited by User:Dharmadhyaksha and User:Furius show subject's notability. These sources have been trusted by editors like User:David Eppstein. I am closing this as "kept" (non-admin closure) Tito☸Dutta 10:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahua mukherjee[edit]

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

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

Why is this person notable? Does this comply with WP:GNP?? Cheers AKS 07:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• She doesn't have to pass WP:GNP, but only WP:ARTIST. She has had a 30-year long career in reviving the extinct classical dance form of Gaudiya Nritya and has been documenting its history as well.[14][15][16][17]. More should probably be available in Bengali publications. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Sources mention her only in passing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

But isn't there just too much of passing mention?[18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. And all of those treat her as the expert in her field and the field itself is also notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comment above and other changes done to the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would all the sourced info present in the article come from if she was mentioned only in passing? If she had only passing mention, our article would be "Mahua Mukherjee is dancer." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's possible to build up a quite extensive article from passing references - if you have enough of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:33, 12 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,  Sandstein  20:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• keep Three of those [25][26][27] are more than passing mentions. Those that are passing mentions (like this one [28]) tend to be a passing mention that she single handedly revived the dance form. Cf. William Kimber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 January 2014
• keep. Gryffindor (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and your reason? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. Unlike our typical YouTube personality, this person has actually accomplished something in the world, and the sources bear that out, even if not as exhaustively as we might like. Unfortunately, there's a fair bit of plugging going around in relation to her work, as is made clear in the history of Gaudiya Nritya and possibly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadurr. But that just means we need to keep an eye on the article, not that it needs to be deletion. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite the annoying mess at Gaudiya Nritya, I believe this person is fully notable. Dance reconstruction is a valid field of endeavour, and she is mentioned, though not always in complimentary terms, in a number of reliable scholarly sources, including four that I've just added to the Gaudiya Nritya page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources listed by Furius are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG and the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" part of WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 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) 00:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Nicholas Lee[edit]

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

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY; no articles in other languages. Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Article does not even articulate why this model might be notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 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 keep. Guerillero | My Talk 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Head or Heart[edit]

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

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

Album fails per Album notability standards -- No album artwork, no official tracklist. And no reliable sources that marks it notability of being a to be released album. Plus, Wikipedia is not a crystalball. Article should be deleted and / or redirected until more sources can be obtained or it's closer to its release date. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title is meant to be Head or Heart not Head to Heart. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today, the official album tracklist and cover were unveiled. So I don't know if that means this should be closed, or if we continue this AfD. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Seeing as how those were the reasons it was foolishly placed on the AfD list, yes. It's an album being released on Atlantic Records and the iTunes pre-order begins in three days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendu1984 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this even nominated for deletion? It's an upcoming release on a major label by a major artist, and the page contains multiple citations from outside sources. The tracklist and cover just got revealed today. This needs to be closed. Samjohnzon (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to meet the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quite clearly fails the WP:NALBUMS policy as it isn't released yet and Perri ain't exactly Guns 'n Roses, so it doesn't meet the "Unreleased material" exception. Gm545 (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the second part of that says "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label", both of which have apparently been published. It seems like a borderline case here, IMO, but what needs to be shown is that it does/doesn't meet WP:GNG. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:25, 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, KTC (talk) 01:00, 3 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,  Sandstein  20:19, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maztek[edit]

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

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

WP:COI autobiography, fails WP:Artist; article was previously deleted (not for the first time) as A7 by User:Yngvadottir on 10 December 2013. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the autor i see there are 1000 of pages like the one i just wrote can you please consider to help me writing this page instead of delete it? i'll add some of the other pages of artists like maztek here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_C

I work with all these artists so actually i don't undertsand why people shouldn't know who is maztek and what he does this is my opinion thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matteo cavo (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This one appears to be close to the borderline. KMag would have got there if it hadn't ceased dead tree publication, and the article about Maztek didn't head itself as a blog. But as it is, your sources all (except possibly the Italian one) fail the Wikipedia Reliable Sources standard because they are either promotional material (e.g. Ram Records or a gig listing) or they are blog entries and as such there is no accountability. Find a couple of printed magazine articles about him. For the record someone's put Nosia and Black Sun Empire up for deletion (there's a vast amount of stuff on Wikipedia that should be deleted under the GNG - Andy C appears to be safe because of his awards, which are another way of showing notability. Unfortunately as things stand I'm going to have to say Delete - but with pointers as to how this can be changed. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" I found many printed magazines about this but how to insert them? here is the link with the printed magazines scans http://www.maztek.net/public/index.php/gallery/press/ Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matteo cavo (talk • contribs) 11:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page appears to be a severe copyright violation (unless of course you have permission from each and every one of those publications to publish their content?), and should probably not even be linked to from Wikipedia. As for inserting quotes or links, the simple answer is that you should not do either, since as the subject of the article you have a conflict of interest and are as such strongly discouraged from editing the article. As noted above, I have nominated Noisia and Black Sun Empire for deletion as neither article has any indication of notability of the subject (thanks for drawing attention to those); however, you might like to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - other less-than-ideal articles are in no way a justification for keeping this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Severe? Hardly. Linking does not count as copyright violation, and all of those things are a) excerpts and b) about the person/organization that has posted them. They may well have permission to repost articles about themselves.  The Steve  07:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to such a page from here is against policy, see WP:LINKVIO.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the part where I said it wasn't violating copyrights, due to both fair use and interviewee IP rights (subjects of interviews are generally considered to have some copyright in the final publication). However, I am not an expert in Italian copyright law.  The Steve  12:47, 14 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. For how to cite sources not available online see wp:cite. 03:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candleabracadabra (talk • contribs)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep substantial RS coverage in multiple languages.  The Steve  07:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gervase Peterson[edit]

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

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

He's doesn't seem notable enough for the encyclopedia based on Wikipedia:Notability (people). He's done a lot of cool stuff, but he's not a high profile person, nor has he had a significant impact in any of these areas. He was a two time contestant on Survivor, but was not a winner nor a notable player. He's also done some acting, modeling, business work, and participated once in a boxing match. None of these things by themselves constitute enough notability for the encyclopedia. As for his acting career, he hasn't had any major roles in anything. He's appears to be a mostly low profile individual who's had a cool career in a variety of fields which came with 15 minutes of fame. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 19:55, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now, appeared on two seasons, and has other activities beyond Survivor. Also helps counter systematic bias due to the general lack of African American Survivor contestants with articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Peterson enjoyed a lot of media attention in 2000, which established his notability. New York Daily News published a piece on him in August 2000: "Gervase the Greedy". The same month, he was featured in The New York Times and profiled in Entertainment Weekly. Of course, the book Survivor (TV Books, 2000, p. 162, ISBN 1575001438) has a few paragraphs about his life. Peterson appeared as himself on the September 2000 season premier episode of The Hughleys TV show, as reported in detail by Jet magazine. People magazine reported Peterson's appearance on Nash Bridges TV show in November 2000. Newsweek volume 135 in 2000 wrote about Peterson, reporting why he decided to appear on the show: "To prove how tough I was to myself, if I could actually hang out there on an island for 39 days." TV Guide published a story about him in 2001, volume 49, p. 195, where he is quoted saying "Winning the immunity challenges is the only way to guarantee that you're going to survive another three days and possibly win." This same quote is repeated with attribution in the 2002 book Community That Is Christian. Philadelphia magazine published a five-page story on him in 2008, also carried by Boston magazine. TV critic and journalist Eric Deggans wrote a book called Race-Baiter: How the Media Wields Dangerous Words to Divide a Nation; on pages 193–194 he talks about the strategy of Peterson, and the interplay of Peterson and Ramona Gray. Professor Vivian Zayas of Cornell wrote about the first Survivor season in "Outwit, Outplay, and Outlast", a chapter within the book The Psychology of Survivor: Leading Psychologists Take an Unauthorized Look at the Most Elaborate Psychological Experiment Ever. On pages 98–100, Zayas analyzes the "sociable and outgoing" strategy of Peterson. Peterson got more notice in 2013 when he competed again. Entertainment Weekly dedicated a story about him in December 2013. In November 2013, Peterson was featured on the Philadelphia Eagles football team official website as a celebrity fan. The Arcadia Publishing book Legendary Locals of Willingboro has one page about Peterson. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He really didn't do much outside of Survivor. Sure, he acted in a couple tv shows/movies, but that doesn't make him notable. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:00, 10 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,  Sandstein  20:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep meets the GNG. Both the nominator and the delete vote admit that this person had 15 minutes of fame. Notability is not temporary. That's all you need.  The Steve  07:49, 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) 00:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Kingsford[edit]

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

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google confirms he exists and published a book of poetry "for private circulation", but I can find no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources found online, and no citations to secondary sources. It's odd because User:Gargleyark created the article in 2007 and has been slowly expanding it since, as recently as a few months ago, and was notified of this AfD and has logged in after the AfD started, but for whatever reason is not participating here. Too bad as it looks like Gargleyark is probably the world's most knowledgeable person on this topic and could shed some light on why it is notable. -- GreenC 04:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Recommend extending a week or so to give User:Gargleyark (article creator) time to see it. -- GreenC 04:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In my opinion, he's at least interesting due to his uncannily acurate reflections on the (for him) far future, and his poetry has recently been published publicly as an eBook. It's true he isn't the most noteworthy person on Wikipedia, but I certainly believe his work is of interest. -- User:Gargleyark 00:19, 19 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) 16:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohabbat Subha Ka Sitara Hai[edit]

Mohabbat Subha Ka Sitara Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. Apart from standard releases there is no appropriate coverage to indicate notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For now, until more sources indicates notability, then it may be hold. ///EuroCarGT 22:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 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) 16:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Prakash[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Did not attract major press coverage and also did not win an election or held a legislative post. Cheers AKS 09:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Agree with nomination's assessment. -- GreenC 05:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:NPOL. Never elected to high office. LibStar (talk) 09:58, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Sharma[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL Cheers AKS 09:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:29, 4 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. As written, a mess to be nuked, and yes, fails WP:BIO notability req. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:V. I disagree with the nominator and Piotrus that this person fails Wikipedia's notability requirements, because I think that claims made in the article, if they were backed by references to reliable sources, would meet notability requirements. I have personal interest in Indian politics and want to support Indian activists, but Wikipedia guidelines do say that all information added to articles has to be referenced to existing published sources. If such sources could be cited, even if they were in Hindi or the subject's working language, then that contribute to a persuasive argument to keep this article. If there are no sources then the article should be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:53, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Hair (EP)[edit]

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

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

Violates WP:FUTURE by being a product announcement of a future release and WP:NALBUMS - An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. It is possibly a little bit early for an article, but there has already been plenty of coverage in major music sources: [29][30][31][32]. I'd say that's just about enough to meet WP:NALBUMS, and there will be many more as soon as the record is released. — sparklism ^hey! 14:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. In addition to the sources found by Sparklism, I'd note that a single has been released [33] and a track listing, release date, and title/cover are available. Opus 113 (talk) 05:03, 7 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:42, 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) 00:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ingeborg Lorentzen[edit]

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

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

No real claims to notability, tagged as such since 2009. But more importantly, her sister's article was deleted recently: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnhild Lorentzen (2nd nomination). Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 5 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per the same rationale as for her sister (and maybe even stronger here, with fewer sources). She is sometimes been mentioned by media in relation to her family and I believe some media may have had interviews with her, but it's not much coverage and she doesn't have any position of importance. She may be redirected to her mother's article, in the same way as Maud Angelica Behn is redirected to Princess Märtha Louise. Iselilja (talk) 05:36, 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) 00:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Busemeyer[edit]

Richard A. Busemeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. W.A.N.T. seems to be his main claim to notability, but it doesn't have its own article and doesn't demonstrate that Busemeyer himself is notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 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) 01:29, 2 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete. A fine fellow, but not notable, unless somebody can find some sources. Lou Sander (talk) 14:52, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Wightman (painter)[edit]

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

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

Another artist with no works in major museum collections, and just one quote from the blog posting of a exhibition catalog. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The 'blog posting' is simply a more accessible version of the foreword for the published catalogue on the artist's work (ISBN 978-1-907849-08-4). However, this reference has now been changed to show the publication rather than the blog about the publication. A quotation from 2003 has also been added along with two newspaper articles as sources. Two public collections have also been added with a source. References and sources support the claim for notability within the UK.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 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) 01:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per nom. One little change in one source doesn't prove notability. We'd need more than that. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep Meets the GNG with a book & several newspaper mentions.  The Steve  08:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thesteve. buffbills7701 12:16, 19 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 Speedy delete. by Malik Shabazz as G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Phillips[edit]

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

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

I just don't see this wind instrument musician's notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Speedy Delete as a copyvio. The material has been copied from [34]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 00:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Purienne[edit]

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

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

unsourced (or self-sourced) self-written bio of a non-notable guy. damiens.rf 19:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional article. Awards are all unsourced, seem to be branch internal ones.--Ben Ben (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:author The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

In this case:

• Creation of a signature photography style
• Creation of a global fashion and culture magazine
• First monograph published by Randomhouse/Prestel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. Prestel is a major publisher (or more precisely a major brand of a huge publishing conglomerate). One of its specialties is photography; here's the list. Even if you want to say that the list isn't very adventurous, you have to concede that it contains some solid stuff. One of the titles is Purienne. Here it is. On the front cover are (i) a girl in a swimsuit (wow! but of course we in AfD are far too serious to linger on that); and (ii) the one word Purienne written in big bold letters. These aren't girls who happened to be photographed by Purienne; instead, this is marketed as a Purienne product (of girls). Hier it is at amazon.de. And although the following factors are strictly speaking irrelevant here, you may also notice that (i) the list price is €40, (ii) it's been out for months, (iii) the world's favorite monopolist doesn't feel a need to discount it; (iv) plenty of used and other new copies are advertised there but none is all that cheaper than list. This all adds up to notability. And the article is, in its current form, non-promotional, and sourced not immaculately but rather better than average for an en-WP article. - Hoary (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC) touched up 13:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's hard to see the wood for the trees with this guy because so many youth publications want to associate themselves with such porn, re-blogging it in order to bask in the glory by association. However, outside of (mere) commercial assignments, (1) he has a book from an unrelated publisher; (2) he has had an exhibition by an unrelated gallery; (3) his style is considered by some to be noteworthy; (4) he is involved in producing a substantial magazine; (5) Hoary gives us a very clear persuasive argument about the nature of Purienne's book. -Lopifalko (talk)
• Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:41, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 00:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Homeyer[edit]

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

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

I don't see this as the bio of a notable author, but rather of the author of some local interest gardening books. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The listing of his book by the Christian Science Monitor is significant, but it's only one source. We need multiple sources (with nontrivial coverage of the subject or his works beyond bylines in local newspapers) for WP:GNG. I could be convinced to change my mind if more good sources turn up. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 26 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, Courcelles 19:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Weak keep In addition to Christian Science Monitor, there are book reviews in Northeast Naturalist and BookList, plus a couple local sources in the article. It's a borderline case. -- GreenC 21:40, 5 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 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) 00:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LDP Headquarter[edit]

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

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

Non notable places, no evidence of any notability. The only "refs" are Facebook pages and blogs affiliated to the party. The substantive content has a promotional bent and fails WP:NOTDIR. Valenciano (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory service. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 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) 00:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clivedon Road Highams Park London[edit]

Clivedon Road Highams Park London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Conpletely ordinary street in London. PROD removed with no explanation. TheLongTone (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of notability.--Charles (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might be wondering why a large section was missing from Google maps. Otherwise, there is nothing about this road that distinguishes itself from every other road in London. Periglio (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Jeh (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG XXX antiuser ^eh? 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But i believe it has nobility and it is here to model a example of a perfectly common road, common roads that seem to have no notability need a legend and i believe Clivedon road can be the leader to show that ordiary roads do exist and without reference they would not exist. This is a model example only. I believe that the cliveden road wikipedia page i have made should be put on wikipedia to expand the encyclopedia website, it is original , and will be seen as a good example as i do not think the idea would take off on wikipedia for everyone to put a road on a wikipedia, this is a example only i have made and a living example of a real road and not under the definition of of a "road " page it should stay as a example "that roads do exist" i have no intention of making lots of wikipedia pages with different road names this Clivedon Rd page is for reference But this does not mean because this road is for reference, and is unique in the way that "it is a real road" and not a page giving definition of the word "road" and therefore i would not object to people putting streets, and roads on wikipedia for what ever reason they want to do it for just because i am doing it for reference. ThankyouJohn Johnstone Smith (talk) 06:21, 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 keep. SNOW Keep. Nominator is reminded of WP:BEFORE. Taking an article to AfD within a few minutes of creation is highly unlikely to be productive. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Byford[edit]

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

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is one of the few recommended by the IoP in our editathons on women in science, see [35]. Being on PHIAC and an editor of the BJP should be sufficient to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I note this AfD was created within 3 minutes of article creation and within a minute of the previous edit, while it was obviously being worked on; this appears overly hasty. I believe "no indication of significance" is somewhat insulting on a BLP for Dr Byford considering her evident impact on her field and the bibliography included before this AfD was created.

If you wish to improve the article, you may wish to check the 113 publications listed for her at ResearchGate. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nomination is perverse. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. High citations in her Google scholar profile demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And admonish the nominator for the WP:BITEy nomination and failure to apply WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per Eppstein. Another time-wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 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) 00:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H2No[edit]

H2No (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Couldn't established WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:Org. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 15:40, 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) 00:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modelus Suite[edit]

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

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

New product that does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking independent references. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:40, 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) 00:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modelus GUI Designer[edit]

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

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

New product that does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking independent references. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:40, 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) 00:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSXCE[edit]

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

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

No explanation of notability. See WP:NOTE. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software (linux distribution) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:50, 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. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FK Hajduk 1925 (2013)[edit]

FK Hajduk 1925 (2013) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:Crystal used. Fails WP:NFOOTY (never played in the national league, never played in the national cup) and WP:GNG. The team may be notable in the future, but for now it is not. Murry1975 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - proposed possible future sports team, not currently notable. GiantSnowman 15:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to FK Hajduk Kula, for which this is supposed to be a "second life". That little information about speculated continuation is already in the target article, so there is nothing to effectively merge. No such user (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage at present for this club to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to FK Hajduk Kula. This is already mentioned in that article. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A non-notable club, failing WP:GNG... JMHamo (talk) 13:34, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Worrall[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:Author. Does not meet WP:GNG. Sources do not support content, mention subject not at all, only in passing, or are by the subject. WorldCat shows limited holdings. Nothing at internet book list. Dlohcierekim 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Many sources are about his book and not many sources to show information about his life. ///EuroCarGT 23:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there talk to me The Mark Worrall article which was originally started almost six years ago in March 2008 has been regularly updated and maintained in good faith and cross referenced on the internet using Amazon, ^[1] Linkedin to establish business background ^[2] and a significant number of Chelsea FC related websites eg ^[3] recent involvement on TV shows ^[4] and ESPN profile ^[5] The subject has a substantial body of UK library catalogued work. Revisions made on 11th January addressed the point about life information. Taking all the above into consideration to say nothing of the subjects profile, a request is made that the article is no longer marked for deletion. Regards Jacqueline1961 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article concerns a seasoned author and authority on Chelsea FC, one of the world's leading football clubs. There is a a signifcant body of information on the subject internet to say nothing of Amazon in respect of published works, influence and credibility and this has been included. Agree article needs balancing but deletion would be petty since it has been painstakingly developed over many years as has been pointed out previously KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to make a statement that there is nothing at the Internet Booklist shows a lack of understanding of what the Internet Booklist is a registry of ie:- fiction as opposed to non-fiction which is the principle activity of Mark Worrall. The Apple iTunes store carries comprehensive details on published works Mark Worrall at Apple Storeand there is a significant amount of information, not only about the author, but also his works at Amazon Mark Worrall at Amazon KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You may only !vote once. GiantSnowman 12:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability, and article is clearly promotional. GiantSnowman 12:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentNo evidence of notability, how exactly are you defining that? Plenty who follow Chelsea, and plenty do, would disagree with your opionion - take a look at this - Mark Worrall guesting on Chelsea chat TV show December 2013 The article can be edited from a neutral point of view. KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidence of notability is substantial Mark Worrall author works. How notable do you need to be? How is the article 'clearly promotional'? You could argue that every author's wikipedia page is promotional since all carry a bibliography with supporting detail. If sweeping statements are going to be made they should be backed up, rather than just matter of fact. Jacqueline1961 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentVery fair point. Subject has written more published words on Chelsea Football Club than most. Mark Worrall at Apple StorePerhaps the detractors are anti-Chelsea :-)KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply Appple store and LinkedIn and Amazon are not independent 3rd party sources. "Author works" links to Amazon. ESPN profile is by the subject? "Posted by Mark Worrall". The Chelsea related links do not provide significant coverage of subject. They mention him only in passing. Please see Wikipedia:author for relevant notability guideline. Perhaps it is KingsoftheKingsRoad who has a conflict of interest that affects his judgment, as he cannot separate the world of football from editing an encyclopedia. Dlohcierekim 14:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't hold with the "promotional view". It's a very well crafted article. And not, as in some cases, written in a false light to make the subject out to me more than they are. It also lacks that insipid yet instinctively written for promo purposes stilting that I see all too often. I only reviewed it after someone tagged it for speedy deletion. I was surprised that the numerous ref's did not provide significant coverage. This is a case of intuition saying the subject should be notable. If the supporters of the article can come up with in-depth coverage of the subject, we can all get back to other things. I was not able to locate it. Dlohcierekim 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• reply LOL yes maybe I cannot separate the world of football from anything actually - the thing is the world of football is an integral part of well, the world - and in respect of significant coverage there is more about this dude than a fair few players of the game that are listed on wiki including plenty of 'our Blues' have next to no in-depth coverage. Worth checking this recent stuff out Mark Worrall guesting on Chelsea chat TV show December 2013this fansite and this interviewI guess at the end of the day, if you want to delete the article, you will anyway. Fact is there are hundreds of other wiki pages for authors who have absolutely zero presence online. I don't want to argue with anyone, it just seems petty do delete this particular one as it's a part of our football club's modern heritage. KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• reply Almost six years of painstaking work in developing the article just to have it deleted. Doesn't make sense to me, I've spent half an hour looking at the wiki pages of a variety of authors who have nothing beyond listings on the internet and have only a couple of books to their name. Why do they merit inclusion? Jacqueline1961 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• replyAnd ...Blue Murder, Chelsea Till I Die still riding high in the Amazon chartsprobably number one - has been most weeks since 2007. Anyway do you think we'll be Man U on Sunday? KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jacqueline1961:, what is your relationship to the article subject? Neither you or @KingsoftheKingsRoad: have evidenced any notability by showing significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Selling a few copies of a book about a football club does not make you notable. GiantSnowman 12:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @GiantSnowman:the problem is, as highlighted to @Dlohcierekim: who flagged this article initially, is that there are a significant number of wikipedia articles about authors that have zero, let alone significant, coverage in reliable, third-party sourcesThis guy has significant coverage on Chelsea FC related websites and has sold more than a few copies of a book about a football club as you somewhat dismissively suggest. Why not get your facts straight first - take a look at the stats linked earlier. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. You have clearly made your decision to delete the article. Perhaps if the subject runs naked across Stamford Bridge on Sunday and attracts world-wide headlines by French kissing Jose Mourinho you will then deem that to be notable? KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @KingsoftheKingsRoad:, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 17:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still no evidence of notability. Like Dlohcierekim, I am a little surprised. But writing books about a notable subject doesn't make you notable. Higher Amazon sales figures for your £0.84 Kindle copies than for other authors' hardback books related to the same football club don't make you notable. Being interviewed on a channel dedicated to that one football club doesn't make you notable. Having an online presence isn't necessary for notability and it's not sufficient either. Having a Wikipedia article doesn't make you notable. NebY (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment frankly, can't be bothered debating the notability concept anymore - go ahead, press delete - it really doesn't matter in the general scheme of things beyond reiterating the points made previously about other articles. Goodbye Jacqueline1961 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG.. JMHamo (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - May as well delete the article then - since apparently I'm a sockpuppet. For the record, I'm nearly 70 year's old and I have to say this whole charade endorses my belief that the world has gone stark raving mad. Good luck to all of you with your crusades against the sockpuppets and those you piously deem to be the non-notables of this world. KingsoftheKingsRoad (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• CU Note - the results of this SPI are pertinent to the ongoing discussion here.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Ruby Murray 16:55, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skeincoin[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. Average, typical altcoin. Only claim to fame is using Skein over scrypt or SHA. Citation Needed | Talk 15:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, same reason I'd given in my PROD tag, doesn't meet WP:GNG. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed it only because of the Skein part, so I tried to look for sources but failed at doing so. Consider my vote more speedy. Citation Needed | Talk 15:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Subject is utterly non-noteworthy, and is promotional (WP:G11); tried and failed to find any reliable sources (WP:RS) with any information. --Agyle (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Spam at best. VinceSamios (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• disagree The main editor did not know what criterias where of essence. Made the first step in citation and relevance. Please reconsider I´m open for changes Methmatician (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until massive improvement is seen, I sadly cannot. Citation Needed | Talk 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references you're adding will not change my speedy delete vote. While I appreciate your effort, the references do not meet Wikipedian's requirement for reliable sources. (See WP:RS). As far as I could find, there simply aren't any reliable sources that mention Skeincoin. Simply finding some website that says something is not acceptable; information needs to come from a reputable source, like the New York Times, or the Journal of International Economics. While it is sometimes acceptable to reference a subject's website (i.e. skeincoin.org) directly, there are limitations to such references, and they do not establish the notability (see WP:N) of the topic, which is one of the fundamental problems with this article. ––Agyle (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. My bad, thought that I could improve this but due to lack of articles I can't. Please change my vote to delete.--Methmatician (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? I don't agree with deletion. The coin exists and there should be a wikipedia article about it. References from popular media is just a matter of time. --matuhin86 (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It exists" isn't sufficient to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." As for speculation about meeting the notability requirements in the future, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You may disagree with these principles, but at this time they're the ones that are in effect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is too early for this, Methmatician... --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 02:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTPROMOTION, no encyclopedic content, just some facts and no significant coverage. ///EuroCarGT 21:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of reliable sources establishing notability of this bitcoin. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Possibly the worst one yet in terms of WP:GNG sources, google yields nothing. Proposing WP:SNOWBALL. I strongly feel that going the full AfD route with these cryptocoin-of-the-moment ads, invariably ending in deletion, is a complete waste of everyone's time. How complicated would it be to run all new articles past an admin, and if they clearly have no decent sources, dump them e.g. in the Article Incubator instead of the main namespace with a single mouse click? This would effectively kill the publicity motive for creating articles on topics that aren't notable. Smite-Meister (talk) 16:18, 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. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Glass[edit]

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

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The entire text of this article is the same as that on IMDB indicating a WP:COPYVIO. AllyD (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks, AllyD, I think my edits should have now solved that problem. Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only news sources I found were PRs called PrimEdge's Subsidiary, Orangebox Entertainment, Announces Completion of Full Audio Post Production for the Comedy, "Gordon Glass", Reminder - PrimEdge's Subsidiary, Orangebox Entertainment, Announces It Has Started Full Audio Post Production for the Comedy "Gordon Glass" and PrimEdge's Subsidiary, Orangebox Entertainment, Announces It Has Started Full Audio Post Production for the Comedy "Gordon Glass". So yeah, this appears to be a film that went straight to the bargain bin and, for good reason, was avoided by nearly every critic imaginable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete for failing WP:NF. This project had limited theatrical release in 2007 and 2008 but did not make an impression. Upon video release in 2011, it continued being ignored by critics. I made that aricle a little prettier, but not enough to save it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Omar_Benson_Miller#Filmography. I found a brief mention in a Film Threat interview, but not much else. I figure that this can redirect to his article as opposed to just outright deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:24, 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) 00:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CK Morgan[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

lets get something straight he wassnt born in ghana he was born in germany but his ghanian because his parents are from ghana so please get your facts right thank you coreheapple whatever your name is artile has been nonimated for deletion but that doesnt mean its getting deleted ,and please stop hating this wiipedia does comes close to what u guys asking for ,like seth said it is notable ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.223.91.102 (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional article created by and primarily edited by SPAs; only sources consist of press releases reprinted in secondary sources of questionable reliability. Doesn't even come close to meeting the requirements of WP:ENT. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Userify. I've found that a large portion of the content of this article is not verifiable, in large part because a Google search doesn't present any reliable sources. Joe Schmedley^T* 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that Barbarajohnson1 seems to be creating multiple articles with similar titles, so maybe the article title needs to be salted should it be deleted. Joe Schmedley^T* 21:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking about this some more, it seems that the article is of questionable verifiability and notability, but I don't want to rule out the possibility of it being improved further, so userifying under User:Barbarajohnson1 would be a less radical solution. Joe Schmedley^T* 20:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not explicitly against moving the article to userspace but where? Who is going to bring the article up to snuff and is there any indication that the subject will be notable in the near future? I'd rather not have a WP:FAKEARTICLE sitting around userspace of a user who doesn't understand our policies and guidelines, doesn't clearly state that they're going to bring the article up to snuff, and may not even have that kind of control based on the lack of notability of the subject of the article. I'd support moving the article to userspace if someone just needed to do a little work but I don't think that's a possibility here, let alone probable. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is true. It doesn't look like the COI editors are going to try to follow guidelines any time soon. Guess I was too hopeful. Joe Schmedley^T* 19:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• this article shouldnt be deleted okay maybe i made another wikipedia because i wanted it to a german language aswell but please keep this CK morgan page because i have removed everything u asked and made it to reliable story thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarajohnson1 (talk •contribs) 07:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC) — Barbarajohnson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• this article shouldnt be deleted at all

he has removed mot of the information that doesnt require the needsof ikipedia

pease keep this artice thanks

i dont think this article shoud be deleted because its about an upcoming musician and as i checked the person has added reference too to prove that he has got some work out there so i think this article :shouldnt be deleted

let be fair and face fact this article meets requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.118.79 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC) — 82.82.118.79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment The above two comments appear to be from the same person. Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that's highly probably, it's probably moot point. Both are WP:SPAs and neither gave an argument against deletion that pertains to any policy and guideline, let alone one that relates to notability. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• im not argueing just saying facts maybe the page ck morgan was created many times but i think the person was trying to put in a another language and maybe did it wrong so i dont think this page should be deleted. — 82.82.118.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Very poor quality sources do not persuade me that this singer is notable 94.194.24.46 (talk) 04:01, 11 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete No indication of any notability presented. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raykyogrou0, that argument doesn't really bring anything to an AfD. Please check out WP:ASSERTN. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Based on content in the article, WP:GNG, WP:MUSBIO, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST would apply. Subject seems to fail WP:GNG with no hits in a Google News search or a Google News Archive search. Outside of that, I couldn't find any indication that the subject has played a major role in affecting or changing his industry. While I did find significant coverage from modernghana.com, all of those sources are written by the same person and I'm having trouble assessing the reliability of that source since one of the articles mentions that he's signed to Atlantic Records and that doesn't appear to the be true. Also, if the source is reliable, and if we take WP:GNG literally, it requires significant coverage from independent and reliable sources (sources is pluralized) and this is only one source. If he is signed to Atlantic, he doesn't have multiple albums published under that label to satisfy point 5 of WP:MUSBIO. I also don't see any evidence of being on a major tour or winning a major award. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see any evidence at all that this person meets any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Although I'm a little more generous when it comes to musicians from non-high-profile countries, this one still fails WP:NMUSIC. Also getting extremely frustrated with the continual re-creation of these spammy articles about this person by the editor - having a Wikipedia article does NOT help someone's career and one does not become encylopedic until one actually has a notable career. I smell a block in the very near future, unfortunately ES&L 12:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• at the end of the day if this article gets deleted no problem feew months yall will see some changes and still dont understand we added some referene but still saying it doesnt match it all we had this page since august or september with no problems why out of sudden now just because i tried to make a page in german or the rnbsinger this dont make any sense but hey its alright not gonna be argueing with anyone do whatever you wanna do with this article thank you your sincerely barbara --Barbarajohnson1 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• who said this was a promotional article the fact that you guys have time to comment some innapriopiate comment shows that you dont have anything to do , we have added reference so i think that should be enough stop the hating and get your facts right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarajohnson1 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • first of all how can he have an album puplished when his first debut Album aint even out yet that dont make sense at all and just cause his name is not on the router doesnt mean his not signed remmeber his an upcoming artist not a popular artist get it right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.223.91.102 (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I can't stress enough how much you guys aren't helping this discussion. This deletion discussion has nothing to do with promotional issues. I'd like to help you as much as I can so here's what I'll need to be able to help you: Find news articles about CK Morgan. If you can't find them, leave any info you might have here on my talk page. Otherwise, the comments you're leaving will continue to have no value, will continue to be ignored, and will continue to do nothing to keep the article from being deleted. In any case, if the article is deleted, it can always be brought back once notability can be established. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. This gentleman appears to be Ghanaian, or at least of Ghanaian origins. Most of the sources in the article also appear to be Ghanaian. Has anyone actually notified WP:WikiProject Ghana of this discussion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To get sources that the COI editor, obviously the subject of the article or his rep, is not aware of? Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, possibly that too. But also out of common courtesy; because it is our standard practice here; and perhaps to get a better evaluation of the various Ghanaian sources in the article. The obvious COI and the antics of editor Barbarajohnson1 should not prevent us from determining Morgan's notability (or lack thereof) with care. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice to notify wikiprojects of deletion discussions? No way. He was born in Ghana but moved as a child to the U.S. and is now based in Germany. It is not necessary to post notices in every possible venue, which in this case would include ethe German and U.S. wiki projects as well as possible Wikiproject:Music, if there is such a thing and which would probably be the most relevant. Note: the subject of the article correctly points out that he was not even born in Ghana. Coretheapple (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the last 2 comments dont even make sense at all we have already posted articles ck morgan was puplished on news1one newspaper just 2days ago so make your research probably and also we have posted all type of links smh , this discussion should be closed because to be honest the last 2 comments dont even make sense what we need to do is to help us improve this article better so it can be kept nice and smooth --Barbarajohnson1 (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete: This article shouldn't be deleted, I may say the creator of the article might be a beginner. Well after a series of Google search. I will say the article under discussion is notable in Ghana. If given the opportunity I can collaborate with the creator clean up and add references to it. Thanks. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 12:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article has provided every conceivable source over the long period of time this article has been nominated for deletion, and it hasn't moved this article even one inch closer to meeting the notability standards for musicians. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 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.