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) 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Heilman[edit]

James Heilman (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)

• "Internet Brands Inc versus Ryan Holliday et al" (PDF). Wikimediafoundation.org. Retrieved 16 December 2012. This is a link to the Wikimedia Foundation website. This is unreliable.
• Teigen, Sarah (October–November 2012). "Medical translations for minority languages" (PDF). Multilingual. Retrieved 12 January 2014. This is a primary source. It does not establish notability.
• Cohen, Noam (29 September 2013). "Editing Wikipedia Pages for Med School Credit". New York Times. Retrieved 12 January 2014. This ref does not mention Heilman but was added to article.

I have decided that the article James Heilman does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and have therefore decided to start an AFD discussion. The secondary sourcing provided so far doesn't show the BLP rises above WP:BLP1E and WP:ACADEMIC. I don't see sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Editors may argue some of the primary sources are relaible but the vailability of secondary sources covering the subject is the test for notability. There are some non-independent sources that have been added to the article which don't show the BLP is notability. For example, The Wikimedia Foundation website is unreliable. I understand it may be difficult to determine what is the threshhold for a Wikipedian to be notable but if User:Koavf is not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp) then I think this article is not notable. This is what Wikipedia is not. Most of the article focuses on Wikpedia related non-notable events that are not of enduring notability, per WP:NOT#NEWS. There is still some cleanup needed to remove some of the unreliable sources and the text that failed verification even if it is kept. QuackGuru (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing personal in the least, sure the fellow is a great human being and a solid contributor, god knows we need more of them, but I question if primarily wiki-only activity is inherently notable. If we deleted @Koavf: ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp ) this appears to be analogous. The alternative is many prominent wikipedians getting their own articles for being prominent wikipedians; @Eric Corbett: comes to mind, for example. Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The litmus test I use is: if Heilman was associated with any other organization, except Wikipedia, would the reporting exceed WP:BLP1E. I believe it would. The ink blot controversy, using Wikipedia for medical students, Cochrane collaboration and Wikivoyage are all separate events. If someone in a corporation were to repeatedly show up in the news, that would qualify. Just because it's Wikipedia should not prevent it. Deepest respect to User:Koavf, but the millionth edit was one (incredible) event reported multiple times. My opinion is the sources are reliable and WP:ACADEMIC is the incorrect standard to apply.Ian Furst (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since the claim of notability is entirely about Wikipedia/Wikimedia activities, I agree with Montanabw that we're in dangerous territory by allowing this article. I am, however, open to arguments otherwise, so I'll be keeping an eye on things here so see if any comments change my mind. (And, also as Montanabw says, this should not be taken as in any way a reflection on James Heilman, about whom I have no animus.) BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.

"This is a link to the Wikimedia Foundation website. This is unreliable." I disagree.

"This is a primary source. It does not establish notability." It is unclear to me why you are singling out a single source. Of course no single source alone establishes notability. The article currently has 20 references.

" This ref does not mention Heilman but was added to article." Yes, I agree. Reference 18 (Teigen) already supports the statement so this reference does not add to the article. It should be removed.

"The secondary sourcing provided so far doesn't show the BLP rises above WP:BLP1E and WP:ACADEMIC." There are at least three separate "events": uploading Rorschach images, manoeuvring editors from Wikitravel, and medical translation. All three areas have (at least) some suitable sources.

"There are some non-independent sources that have been added to the article which don't show the BLP is notability." Your use of the word "some" makes the statement irrelevant. Your overall assertion is that the sum of all the sources leaves the subject non-notable. Rather, the statement is justification for clean-up, not deletion.

"if User:Koavf is not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp) then I think this article is not notable." I am not able to view the nature of that article at the time of its deletion. The consensus from the AfD was that the article was based on one event. That situation is not the case with this article. Also, be aware of WP:WAX.

"This is what Wikipedia is not. Most of the article focuses on Wikpedia related non-notable events that are not of enduring notability, per WP:NOT#NEWS." You are confusing an article about a single event with an article about a living person. The policy explicitly refers to "stand-alone articles on significant current events."

Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The WMF is a reliable source only for it own statements about itself. As a repository for the documents of others - in this case a court - it has no reputation for accuracy. Certainly if this is a public legal document it must be available from somewhere else. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• He presumably is mentioning the problem with primary sources because WP:Notability at the WP:GNG defines primary sources as being irrelevant for establishing notability. Sources must be both secondary and independent to "count" for notability. This means that most newspaper articles don't "count", since most newspaper articles are primary sources (NB "most": an analysis piece or a retrospective would be secondary). The WMF page is both primary and of questionable independence, and so certainly doesn't "count", even though it meets WP:Verifiability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please point me to a place which defines newspaper articles as "primary". The vast majority of newspaper cites are for articles written by a reporter who is not a participant, and are therefore, by definition, secondary sources. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Problematic BLP for a variety of reasons. Best deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Multiple extremely high quailty sources have covered James' work on medical content and in other areas of Wikimedia. First a note, I know James and work with him on the board of Wiki Project Med Foundation; I didn't create this article but once it existed wanted it to be thorough. (In any case, feel free to consider that a fair disclosure). Three quick points about the nomination: 1) The source which didn't mention Heilman specifically was merely used to wrap-up the description of the event which had been covered in multiple reliable sources. It was a capstone, not a pillar of notability. 2) The 'primary' source is written in a Trade Publication and is used to support Heilman's work with Translators Without Borders. I can accept that this may not add to notability, but TWB is a reliable source for their own partnerships and who leads them. That this was published by an independent magazine gives it more weight. 3) The Wikimedia Foundation citation is merely to a hosted pdf from a U.S. District Court. It's a primary document illustrating the claims made in multiple other reliable secondary sources. We can probably find a copy elsewhere, but are we really suggesting WMF isn't reliable to host a document of a court case they were involved in? All told, I think Wikipedians do often gain notability, and while we shouldn't be promoting inside-baseball to outside readers, the intersection of Wikipedia with 'real life' means that some of us will inevitably become 'really notable'. When this happens, we should cover it like anything else. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:ACADEMIC is the wrong measurement; this subject meets GNG. BLP1E is also a red herring. There is no case for deletion here. Roccodrift (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Attention closing admin. Roccodrift has been accused of puppeting. If the editor is indef-blocked then I don't think his vote counts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (Note: The above statement was deleted by Roccodrift as a "personal attack", and restored by QuackGuru. It is not, however, a personal attack, since the conclusion of the SPI was that Roccodrift is clearly someone's sock, although it could not determine whose, amd the editor behind the name should be editing with their primary account. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Attention closing admin, part II: Roccodrift has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet (of whom, I don't know) by MastCell, who said that the evidence that he is a sock of Belchfire is "suggestive but not conclusive". Jinkinson talk to me 23:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell continued: "However, it is clear that Roccodrift is an alternate account being operated by an experienced Wikipedia." BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sock or not, Roccodrift is correct that WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BLP1E are inapplicable, as Doc James is not primarily notable for his work in academia, nor does his purported notability stem from a single event. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – as a new article (<1 week old), it has WP:POTENTIAL. Tag for refimprove and come back to it in a couple of months for an AfD if need be. – S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article has "potential", but there are questions about its sources and notability, it should be moved into userspace until those issues are cleared up. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I have fans who have followed me to this AFD discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His notability seems abundantly clear to me. We should have no bias against WPedians. It is after all possible for things relating to WP to be notable. I don't think including him, or the very few others we do, shows any particular bias in their favor DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles close to the event are primary sources according to Wikipedia policy. I think the primary sourced should be removed from the article. See WP:PRIMARY. If the primary sources were removed from the BLP it would be a much shorter page. Editors have not shown this article is notable and the primary sources are being overused to discuss an alleged Wikipedia controversy. For example, the primary sources are being misused to discuss the Rorschach test. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources#Secondary sources for notability. Editors at the BLP are not exercising extreme caution in using primary sources. The article relies on too many primary sources which is a BLP violation. This is a bias (and non-notable) article about a living person. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; while I have mixed feelings about the notability of Wikipedians, I think that the points that are presented in the article would be sufficient to establish notability for a non-Wikipedian. There may be a strict procedural justification for deletion, but I don't think that such a justification would respect the spirit of the rules in this case. ((Nihiltres|talk|edits)) 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I have immense respect for James and his work, and he had done more for health content on Wikipedia than anyone can imagine, but I am unsure whether that creates encyclopedic notability in its own right. There is very little precedent, and I note the deletion of Justin Knapp's article (but the existence of an article on the Essjay controversy). Perhaps the article should be kept for expansion, but we simultaneously need a wider debate on what a Wikipedian needs to do to achieve notability. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - would vote Delete (although marginal), but remain strongly opposed to Dr Heilmann's controversial position and so don't feel I could vote fairly. That said, I'm concerned that his principal claim to notability was less of his own choosing than one might be led to believe. He became the public spokesman for a position held my the vast majority who expressed an opinion (I think the RfC "vote" was eventually about 3 against about 30). Dr Heilmann himself was, after all, re-adding material previously added by others. Maybe the press took such an interest in him as he was "a doctor"? He may be notable by Wikipedia standards, although these seem to be still being debated. But to the non-Wiki world, I fear his article might look a little odd alongside the others linked in the Rorschach test article. He might even be at risk of becoming some kind of blue-gowned poster-boy of Wikipedia's ideals of non-censorship. I'm also concerned that the debate here illustrates that creating such an article as this may itself prove controversial (within the sometimes rather self-obsessed world of Wikipedia). I'd be very interested to hear Dr Heilman's own view here, after all there might be WP:BLP issues he wishes to address or other points he might like to correct. Surely his contribution can't be censored? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. James wrote on his talkpage 13 January: Am involved thus will leave this to others. Also I only write about medicine. Know nothing about notability requirements for people. --Hordaland (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A fair comment. Although some have argued, quite strongly, that the Rorshach is not medicine? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Reading through the sources, it seems as though Dr. Heilman has achieved notability for several independent reasons: his work to turn Wikipedia into a reliable and neutral source for medical knowledge, his controversial efforts to include forbidden knowledge, the lawsuit filed against him, and his advocacy for translations. Some of these are more notable than others, and the translation work, in particular, needs more independent, reliable sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the sourcing issues have been resolved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As Hordaland mentions, as I am involved I should not get a vote either way. I, however, do not have a strong opinion on this article. While I am honored that some feel I am notable I also have no concerns if people delete the article as being not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that sources in our article in major publications centered around his activities on Wikipedia on at least three different occasions (the Readers Digest "Is Google Making Us Sick" story, the stories in several sources about the Rorschach test and subsequent complaints against the subject, and the NYT story about a plagiarism incident discovered by the subject) are enough for WP:GNG. If we think he's doing this in his capacity as an academic then he also passes WP:PROF#C7, or alternatively if he's doing this as a hobby then it doesn't matter whether he also passes WP:PROF: being an academic doesn't disqualify someone from being notable for some other reason. It's also irrelevant that all of these activities involve Wikipedia: they're diverse enough to avoid WP:BIO1E and there's nothing in WP:SELFREF or other policy that says we can't write about Wikipedians who achieve external notability for their Wikipedian activities. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (though of course I would vote this way since I created the article). Other users have made what I feel are convincing arguments that Heilman is not just notable for the Rorschach test image thing; sources supporting this conclusion include the Readers' Digest article, the New York Times article about the Wikitravel lawsuit, and the Bulletin of the World Health Organization article. Jinkinson talk to me 21:34, 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 Speedy Delete G11 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fewclick Search[edit]

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

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

I can't find any indication that this website meets the notability criterion. The only source is an Alexa ranking page, and a Google search for "Fewclick Search" mostly finds unrelated pages. Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged for speedy deletion due to promotional language. Alexius08 (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was apparently speedily deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) so maybe the discussion should be closed as moot. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woodland Patchwork[edit]

Woodland Patchwork (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 was unable to find any substantial press coverage of a new nation splitting off from Japan. Since it uses bitcoins, there was a bit of coverage on bitcoin websites, and a few wikis. However I can't find substantive coverage in reliable sources. Delete for lack of reliable sourcing and lack of evidence of notability. (I should add that I don't speak Japanese, and am thus not able to search some key sources.) TeaDrinker (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some guy blogs in October that he has declared a chunk of Japanese wilderness a "sovereign, independent micronation". Generates a tiny bit of notice in the blogosphere by declaring Bitcoin its currency. He or some other SPA editor inserts this press release of an article into WP. I would also support speedy deletion under "G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes" and "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced hoax. --DAJF (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Without any sources--and no reliable ones seemingly available after searching--such a controversial topic does not deserve to have an article on Wikipedia. Michitaro (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could find nothing in Japanese about this. --Cckerberos (talk) 09:31, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of American television actresses[edit]

List of American television actresses (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)

An unneeded list. We already have Category:American television actresses. There is currently no List of American television actors page, so why do we have a page dedicated to listing actresses and not male actors? Tinton5 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:LISTN - there are lots of sources about television actresses. Per WP:LISTPURP there isn't anything wrong with a category and a list being redundant, as they serve different purposes. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is nothing wrong with having a category and a list covering the same thing, per WP:LISTPURP, since a list is more easily browsed, and since a list allows tracking removals. The fact that some other article does not exist is not a convincing reason to delete a list about an extremely notable collection of entries in a field which has had a great deal of coverage for many years. Feel free to create a list of American television actors, perhaps from the existing category "American male television actors." Edison (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rational navigational function for this list. Certainly a bit broad in parameters. The fact there is no equivalent list for male actors is an OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:54, 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. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of American film actresses[edit]

List of American film actresses (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)

An unneeded list. We already have Category:American film actresses. A similar page, List of American film actors was deleted for similar reasons, so why do we only have a list of actresses and not male actors? Tinton5 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is nothing wrong with having a category and a list covering the same thing, per WP:LISTPURP, since a list is more easily browsed, and since a list allows tracking removals. This means that the deletion of the list of actors due to it also being a category was not a wise move. The fact that some other article does not exist is not a convincing reason to delete a list about an extremely notable collection of entries in a field which has had a great deal of coverage for a century or so. Edison (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this list in its current state is rather messy. Tinton5 (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm usually quoting WP:CLN at WP:CFD, so it's nice to see it used here are AfD, especially with a focus on the WP:NOTDUP section's explanation of why existence of one has no relevance to deletion of a corresponding category, list or navigation template. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American film actors is over three years old and had a rather narrow participation that would likely change if the article were recreated now. Alansohn (talk) 03:50, 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) 00:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PEIMS[edit]

PEIMS (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) 21:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Texas Education Agency, for which it is the centralized database. Even if it were expanded beyond a stub, it doesn't seem to be independently notable, but it does get passing mentions, especially in the context of school and district performance ratings. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I also see no reason for merging. Most organisations will have internal reporting systems. It's not something worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article unless there's somthing out of the ordinary about it's existence. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 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. Daniel (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pasha (Hinduism)[edit]

Pasha (Hinduism) (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) 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References added.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added some illustrations and also WL'd in a few other articles. --Dfred (talk) 19:04, 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 Speedy delete. Once blatantly false information, amounting to vandalism, was removed, there was no claim of significance in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Styles[edit]

Gemma Styles (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)

Notability is not inherited. Though her brother is notable, she is not. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also fails WP:BIO. ///EuroCarGT 21:15, 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Snapple Real Facts[edit]

List of Snapple Real Facts (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)

Creator removed PROD. Does Wikipedia really need this list of factoids? it's mentioned in the article on Snapple, and the company maintain a list on their website. Surely enough. TheLongTone (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• wikipedia does need this article due to the explination of the phenomina and other information not mentiond on the snapple article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meehand (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is an unsourced list of trivia that is printed inside of Snapple bottle caps. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sufficiently covered in the main article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ugh. Talk about indiscriminate trivia. Several of them are rather infamous urban legends. Makes me wonder how many of them are sourced directly from urban legends. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Indiscriminate trivia, and almost certainly a copyright violation. Pburka (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I like piling on on problematic lists. Probable copyvio, WP:NOT#INFO, WP:GNG and even WP:NOR Secret ^account 05:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and probably a copyright violation. Invertzoo (talk) 16:15, 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) 00:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon String Quartet[edit]

Oregon String Quartet (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) 20:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if the nominator completed the before requirement, but delete based on a quick search with Google Books and Gnews, which turned up nothing but trivial coverage (one book item appeared to be a review, but the snippet was not enough to confirm). If someone finds something more that demonstrates notability, then I'll reconsider. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unable to find any neutral reviews or coverage. All I could find is a lot of advertising-related Google hits. —EncMstr (talk) 04:25, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination has been withdrawn, and no other delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noack Organ Company[edit]

Noack Organ Company (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) 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I found several news articles on the company and a number of book references including a substantial entry in this enclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added ref mentioned above to the article, plus several others to books (including one dedicated to this organ builder), and a Boston Globe article dedicated to them. There is other book and newspaper coverage out there. Article does need building out, but is certainly notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn - please close Thanks for working on this, looks like I was being too harsh. Boleyn (talk) 06:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her Name in Lights[edit]

Her Name in Lights (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 that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild keep, in that it's made of members of notable bands. Desperately in need of more, though - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Make that a solid keep with the sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being comprised of former members of other notable bands makes this of encyclopedic interest. If we can't find sources once the GNews archive is back up then a merge into a section in Even As We Speak may be in order - that article also needs sources but that band is more notable. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. Really really really needs more sources though - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Former members of notable bands, now sourced by three or four refs, including two album reviews.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Gira Grant[edit]

Melissa Gira Grant (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) 20:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Some coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has written articles in (WashPost, Reason, Wired, etc) which itself is not notable, but those writings have been talked about Gawker, Daily Beast, Feministe, New Yorker, The Dish, CNN. -- GreenC 05:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Prominent feminist writer in left politics and sex worker rights issues. Verso Books author. Three independent results in WorldCat, Runtotherocks22 (talk) 23:16, 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Note that earlier AfDs were about a different subject, this is the first AfD for this organisation.[reply]

Alpha Phi Epsilon[edit]

Alpha Phi Epsilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – )

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

Other than a three sentence description of this fraternity on the Ursinus College site, I can't find a single reliable source that discusses it. This article was previously deleted for non-notability and still fails WP:GNG. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Placing this here from where I had posted it before, seeing as it was not in the talk section.
While I can understand the policy for neutral points of view when writing, and can certainly respect it as well, I find some fault in considering that a major reason for the deletion of this page. First of all, this page is written about a local, secret fraternity. While not secret in the sense that no one knows it exists, it is secret in the nature of its activities and history. This page was designed in order to be an informative page about Alpha Phi Epsilon, and without people outside of the fraternity necessarily knowing the history in a complete and factual way, it would be a disservice to the fraternity, and to Wikipedia as well as anyone reading the article, if it was written by someone with a lack of knowledge about the subject. Secondly, the nature in which the article itself is written is purely informative. If there was information that was not purely written about the fraternity that was factual and informative in nature, and instead purely braggadocious in order to hype up the fraternity (for example "this is the best fraternity on campus!" [citation needed]) then I could understand. Information like the fact that some recent fraternity members have gone on to higher institutions, like PCOM, surely does give the fraternity and this page a "boost" in a way of reputation and standing among other fraternities, but it is not just some random opinion. That is an actual fact about the fraternity and its members that are now alumni. Thirdly, previous incarnations of this page were apparently deleted because they did not provide accurate resources in order to verify information on the page (from what I have gathered from the other talk pages). I have added in multiple sources, six I believe (for now), to verify information written. This is honestly more that I have seen on some other pages of which no issue is taken with, including other fraternity and sorority pages on Wikipedia (even for Ursinus College). I believe that it is only fair that this page is allowed to be kept, if not forever, for at least a period of time to allow this page to be improved (as it was through previous talk pages about the page). Therefore, for the time being, I have removed the proposed deletion notice. Previously, this page was kept for 3 years without any real improvements and I believe that some time is needed in order to make this a proper Wikipedia article. Right now, the major source for this article is under construction of its website and is due to be completed, at its very latest, by mid May. The page should at least be kept for this long. Information will be taken into consideration as it is provided and suggestions will be accepted into the page as verified. Samueltalerico (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Sorry, but the mere fact that it exists is not good enough. The fact that other stuff exists is also a poor argument to keep this article. If there are other articles in even worse condition, they should be nominated, too. Adding more primary sources will not help to establish notability; instead, you should work to find coverage in newspapers, magazines, books, and other secondary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• So you would say that finding news articles, and the like, which report on things that have happened including the fraternity and it's members would then be considered secondary articles, and that this would therefore help the page be kept? You have to remember that this page was literally just created again without looking back at past incarnations. Wanting to quickly delete it without proper opportunity to improve the page itself seems somewhat unwarranted. Samueltalerico (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I believe that sources should precede articles. If the topic is notable, it's not difficult to add four or five citations when the article is first created. But, yes, newspaper articles about the organization itself would be enough to keep it. However, remember that they must be in depth (no trivial mentions or routine coverage), and it must be reliably published (no press releases). See WP:42 for a brief overview in plain language. The deletion discussion usually lasts for seven days, but it can go longer when there's no clear consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is actually the first AfD for this organisation, the other AfDs were about "Alpha Phi Epsilon Inter-University Collegiate Service Fraternity and Sorority" in the Philippines. So it has not existed before. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big shortage of coverage by secondary sources independent of the subject, probably doesn't meet GNG. Appear to be some problems with neutrality as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadblade (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 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) 00:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Waltz[edit]

Jasmine Waltz (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 notability criteria. Thre or four minor roles as an actress, and currently a 'contestant' on Celebrity Big Brother - though as huffingtonpost.co.uk/entertainment/ points out, few seem to have heard of her: "When Jasmine Waltz strutted into the 'Celebrity Big Brother' house this year everyone (including us) asked, 'who she?'." [1] If the best source for assertions concerning notability states explicitly that the person has failed to be noted, one has to conclude that they are right. As with all contestants ('celebrity' and otherwise) on such shows, there is the usual tabloid gossip and vacuous bollocks doing the rounds, though none of it is fit for purpose as a source on a biography, and none of it does anything to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect toCelebrity Big Brother 13 per WP:BLP1E -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BLP1E is a bit of a stretch given that she was famous before she appeared on Celebrity Big Brother 13.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how does an article entitled "Who is Jasmine Waltz?" indicate that she is famous? If she was, they wouldn't have to ask. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous" for her dating? How encyclopedic. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Lots of notable people aren't well-known. I bet most people don't know who Chester Thompson is, but that doesn't make him not notable. Also, the source in which you quote, is the British version of the Huffington Post. I'm sure that there are also lots of British actors and actresses who aren't well-known in the US either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't seriously suggesting that Waltz meets our notability criteria as an actress? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't expressed an opinion either way. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A Quest For Knowledge.--Launchballer 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AQFN hasn't !voted... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. The combination of Celebrity Big Brother, appearances in films and her personal life add up to a keep. Better?--Launchballer 21:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worse. You have failed to explain which specific Wikipedia notability criteria Waltz meets, and why. Incidentally, everyone has a 'personal life' - it doesn't make them notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant her affiliation with other celebrities, which pre-Celebrity Big Brother was probably what she was best known for. Still discounting that, WP:1EVENT - she is known for more than one event.--Launchballer 21:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. And nor can it be acquired by dating notable people... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or redirect as per TRPoD above. Now that the worst of the BLP vios have been removed (most of them not by me, though I just blanked a nasty quote), there's practically nothing left. No notability, for sure. I'm surprised to learn from the history that an admin moved Launchballer's (see the "Keep" just above) userspace draft in this wretched condition into mainspace, in preference to deleting it as an attack page. I'm still tempted to speedy it per WP:A7, but I guess it's a bit late in the day for that. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Nom + Bish sum it up nicely. Can someone just recreate a deleted article?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteas entirely non notable. I found [3] (the Daily Mail, so anybody fastidious won't want to look) which describes her as being more famous for her 'love life' than her acting. Delete as gossip-column trash.TheLongTone (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was surprised when I saw she didn't have one. I know <-- WP:BLP violation redacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC) --> don't have entries of their own, but both were not in the public eye prior to their affair and disappeared shortly after their short CBB stints. Jasmine has at least appeared in films, albeit small roles. I say keep as she is at least notable to an extent, and lots of bit player actresses have entries on here. Reli source (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the unlikely event that she wins CBB she will likely satisfy notability guidelines. Wait and see. Leaky Caldron 22:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky caldron: She is now out.--Launchballer 22:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I see! Leaky Caldron 22:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can see her making a name for herself in the UK,if the US don't want her, similar to Ruby Wax and Caprice. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you can "see" isn't relevant - see WP:CRYSTAL--Scott Mac 22:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete really? Why is this even remotely encyclopedic? Who is Jasmine Waltz? Answer? No one. Folk put her on CBB because she was colourful - but there's nothing at all notable here. The only thing notable about her is that she was on CBB, so mention that on a page on the show - and if it isn't important enough for that - then it isn't.--Scott Mac 22:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Her IMDB doesn't exactly consist of one credit. So I don't see what the big deal is, will anyone lose sleep if she has an article? Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability other than having had minor acting roles, and participating in the thirteenth series of CBB (thirteenth—participants are not inherently notable). Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO rather thoroughly and has become a dumping ground for tabloid trash speculation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has some actress roles. And is now on Celeb BB. Had she not been part of BB I guess she would be a weak delete but with BB credit she now passes.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Some actress roles" isn't a criteria in WP:NACTOR, and notability isn't inherited. What exactly is she supposed to be notable for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are considering as actress roles: "customer #3" and "smoking girl" - really?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a depressingly high number of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions in this AfD. Can we please focus the discussion on whether or not the topic meets WP:GNG? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Because OTHER STUFF DOESN'T EXIST. I don't know when I've seen any article less qualified for Wikipedia. When you add in the BLP issues, it's obvious that it has simply become a WP:COATRACK for gossip. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the subject has not achieved sufficient notability for an article at this point in time. --Stormbay (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 13. GiantSnowman 13:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother 13. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ..... Seriously who the bloody hell is she ?, No one knows nor cares .... Anyway delete as non notable wannabe. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is a celebrity [unsourced BLP redacted]. This is a legitimate genre of the entertainment industry. It was widely reported in the entertainment press when it was released and it is still being reported and discussed in newspapers today. Therefore notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.27.41 (talk • contribs)

This IP has been blocked for six months.[4] Bishonen | talk 00:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. The article was created due to her inclusion in Celebrity Big Brother just a few days ago. But the appearance doesn't confer notability in my opinion and the refs provided are just weak re-iterations of her appearance on Big Brother. Szzuk (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is possible that more coverage would be generated by a longer stay on Big Brother, but that is mere speculation. As it is, all coverage appears to by non-WP:RS. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AndyTheGrump you clearly have a personal vendetta against Waltz, which you should put aside, as Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. I just don't get why people care so much if someone has an article or not. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to explain how I could possibly have a 'personal vendetta' against someone I hadn't heard of until a few days ago? And in answer to your question, the reason that people 'care' is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dumping-ground for sub-tabloid trivia. We have notability criteria, arrived at through community consensus, and it is entirely obvious that Waltz doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria - nobody has yet even offered any real explanation as to what Waltz is supposed to be notable for. If you don't like it you can (a) propose that the criteria be changed, or (b) start your own online encyclopaedia. Otherwise, you will have to accept that the community has different views than you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 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) 00:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abar Rangbaazi (Rangbaaz 2)[edit]

Abar Rangbaazi (Rangbaaz 2) (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 future film, cannot find confirmation of development or production other than rumors BOVINEBOY2008 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find nothing substantial to actually confirm that this project is underway in any format. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 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) 00:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Order of the Temple of the Rosy Cross[edit]

Mystical Order of the Temple of the Rosy Cross (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. Presumably the same as 2007 deleted version. Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could find nothing at all of substance. Mangoe (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The section on "Order of the Temple of the Rosy Cross" might possibly qualify to be a free-standing article as a short-lived splinter of theosophy. However the failure to update the article for soemthint what was going to happen over a year ago suggests that it did not happen or was utterly NN, or both. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 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. Wizardman 16:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The eLearning Center at Politehnica University of Timişoara[edit]

The eLearning Center at Politehnica University of Timişoara (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)

An office within a university isn't generally notable, and I can't see there should be an exception in this case, given there is essentially no independent coverage. This might be worth a line at Polytechnic University of Timișoara, but that's about it. Exhaustively recording the center's activities is beyond the scope of this project. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Support's nom's argument that this fails WP:GNG (or, specifically, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Creator may want to have it userfied. Wikiedia is not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:46, 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. Daniel (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Europe List[edit]

The Europe List (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 topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The topic also fails WP:NOT, there is no enduring notability of the event, and is not a major subtopic per Wikipedia:Summary style. Information about the Europe List can be covered in Goethe-Institut. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no reliable third party coverage. an attempt at a social/cultural movement that gained no traction or public notice. redirect to the sponsor Goethe-Institut would also be acceptable if anyone can make a case that it is a likely search term.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just some survey which has no little encyclopedic content. ///EuroCarGT 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 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. Wizardman 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurimas Vertelis[edit]

Aurimas Vertelis (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)

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was declined on the grounds that the content was this article was significantly different from the last version. However, he has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The player still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. The Lithuanian league is not a fully-pro league based on WP:FPL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – unsure how 24 words of prose can be significantly different from the version deleted before, but the article should be deleted for the same reasons mentioned in the previous AfD as there is still no indication of sufficient notability. C679 11:04, 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 delete. Wizardman 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obeida Khateb[edit]

Obeida Khateb (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he may have played for a fully pro club in a non-fully pro league. This is not confirmed by reliable sources, nor would it confer notability if it were. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per this source which shows he did not make any appearances in the Israeli Premier League, which is the only fully-professional league in Israel. This means he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and, as he also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources, he is not notable. GiantSnowman 19:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. He has never played in the top-tier of Israeli football, nor has he played in a cup match while with that top-tier side. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - has only plauyed in Liga Lemuit which has not been deemed FPL since 2009. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - what is basis for claiming that second-tier of Israeli football isn't professional? Wikipedia says it is - [5]. FIFA says it is - [6]. A recent Israeli newspaper article refers to the 2 top leagues being professional (referring to the promotion of a team to Liga Leumit as being promoted to the professional leagues) [7]. Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Nfitz:, NFOOTY requires players to have played in FULLY professional leagues. The WP link you provide does not say that the Israeli second division is fully professional, merely that it is professional to some degree. That inference is also all that can be read into the FIFA source and the newpaper article you provide. You are more than welcome to provide sources that indicate the league is fully professional, but a player AfD is not the arena in which to do so. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the player is being deleted on the basis that the league is not fully professional, then the player AFD is indeed an arena to do it. Where is the evidence that the league is not fully professional? One normally talks about professional and non-professional, and there are numerous references to this league as being professional. Nfitz (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The league was supposedly fully professional until league reorganisation in 2009 (although having been a regular attendee at matches in the mid 2000s when one club was struggling to get crowds of over 100, I really don't see how that could have been true). It was then merged with the league below, which was part-time and is now a mix – probably more part-time than full time given that the average attendance of the league hovers around the 500 mark. This Jerusalem Post article states "the second division has transformed into a league with a majority of part-time players". The Times of Israel reference is probably linked to the common misunderstanding that if players get paid anything, they are professional (i.e. ignoring the important difference between semi-pro and fully-pro. I know some clubs at level 11 (or even Sunday League) in England pay players). Number 57 13:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 13:21, 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. Wizardman 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Gardner (fighter)[edit]

David Gardner (fighter) (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 MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete MMA fighter that doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One top tier fight is not enough to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 05:34, 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. Wizardman 17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radmir Gabdullin[edit]

Radmir Gabdullin (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 MMA fighter - no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and no sources to show he meets WP:MANOTE for his combat sambo. Papaursa (talk) 19:33, 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. Wizardman 17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Mungoshi[edit]

Jonah Mungoshi (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) 15:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:55, 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. Wizardman 17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilli Moon[edit]

Gilli Moon (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) 15:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Might be a speedy deletion candidate? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of coverage of her book Just Get Out There in the media section of her website, but it's not the type we consider reliable sources, rather blogs, unpublished quotes from individuals, etc.. not the normal book reviews in reliable secondary sources (newspapers, magazines etc). -- GreenC 04:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see that she meets WP:MUSIC, nor do I think the book meets WP:BK. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the views expressed above. Finnegas (talk) 22:09, 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 merge to Grizzly (film)#The "Sequel". — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly II: The Predator[edit]

Grizzly II: The Predator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an unfinished sequel to that bear horror movie Grizzly. Although most of it was shot it was scrapped for reasons that arent clear. However, a workprint that's nearly finished (all that's missing is a coherent ending - for the most part all thats there is footage that was filmed but never properly edited) later surfaced so now we can see the film. This sounds like something that would get loads of coverage in genre sites, but Im literally unable to find any RS. It wouldnt surprise me if there are some out there though. Beerest 2 talk 15:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has an entire category dedicated to unfinished films (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unfinished_films), so it seems a bit silly to nominate this for deletion. In most cases there is so little info on them that reliable sources are rare. Just a quick search shows there are plenty of pages with info on this film and it has its own IMDb page. Plus, it already has four references on the page. Do you expect mainstream coverage from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter? Because that won't happen on an unfinished film from 25+ years ago. As of right now, Wikipedia provides the best source of info on this rare film. Udar55 (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whats so special about an IMDB page. Plus, there is no bar that something has to reach. It has to reach GNG or not, it doesnt matter if its something that wont attract coverage. Im not notable, but I dont have a page just because Im not the type of person who gets coverage. Beerest 2 talk 02:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 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)

• Redirect to Grizzly_(film)#The_.22Sequel.22. Some films can gain notability without ever releasing, but it is relatively rare since we have to have a lot of coverage of its production. We don't have that. I found some brief mentions here and there, but very little of it was in places that we could consider to be usable as a RS. Most of it is just fan speculation, junk hits, and other things we can't use towards notability. Ultimately all I found that really could be used was this book mention. Now the other problem is that of the sources on the article itself, not much of those can be used. One is a forum link, which is absolutely unusable, another is a link that was dead when I clicked it (and archive searches seem to suggest it would be considered an unusable blog-type site), one link that does work but would be considered a blog-type source, and the Cinema Snob. TCS is part of That Guy with the Glasses, but I've never really seen any of TCS stuff used as a reliable source for notability. Ultimately there just isn't enough out there to merit an article at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like a merge to the original film is the most reasonable outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Tokyogirl79. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 23 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. Wizardman 17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thurs statistical function[edit]

Thurs statistical function (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 cites two articles with seven and eleven citations in GScholar, respectively, which is not enough to establish notability. Moreover, it does not have references for the bulk of its text, which is written in the first person plural, suggesting either plagiarism or original research. I tried a web search to find references, but I couldn't find any. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nominator. Also, article is atrociously written. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Retain.I (DrDBKarron) have the attention of Prof Powell now and he now editing this. Dbkarron (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain I will be using it to process medical data in 2014 to investigate the points advanced by the Multiple Chronic Conditions (MCC) initiative of the Department of Health and Human Services. Valerie J H Powell, co-editor of Powell, V et al., Integration of Medical and Dental Care and Patient Data (Springer UK, 2012: http://www.springer.com/public+health/book/978-1-4471-2184-8).Valerie541 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)— Valerie541 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

spurious reason with no basis in Wikipedia policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as non-notable WP:OR. -- 101.119.29.206 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sources have been added, but they're all works by this prof. Powell and GScholar reports no citations for several of the cited works, so whether they can be regarded third-party sources is dubious despite peer review. (If citations can be found in other systems than Google, please say so.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:28, 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. Wizardman 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Monitor (Kirksville, Missouri)[edit]

The Monitor (Kirksville, Missouri) (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. Might be worth a redirect to the university. Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to school. Worth mentioning there. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:01, 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. Wizardman 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Witch[edit]

Mississippi Witch (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. References in article are mainly a MySpace page. Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable – very few relevant Google hits. Looks like the article was written by the band members. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per NinjaRobotPirate. Alexius08 (talk) 05:30, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Loembe[edit]

James Loembe (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)

Contested Prod on the following grounds: "I'm nervous about deleting 5-year old article about player in a top team of Togo's highest league, without much more thought." Player has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football and so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient non-routine coverage to achieve a GNG pass either. Fenix down (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - appears to be an international player. Article requires improving. GiantSnowman 12:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He is a full-time international player per national-football teams. However, this cap came as a sub in 2011 so you may want to make WP:GNG the ultimate decider here. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hmmm... I'm not so sure. I can't see anything on fifa website to support this nor find any info on what match this might have been. Happy to be proven wrong though if someone can dig out a match report. Fenix down (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone has the time to go through the seven matches Togo played in 2011 then that would be great. Unfortunetly I have some other things to catch up on so if it is not done then I will do it later. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Senior international for Togo, as suggested above. Came on in match against Niger in Niamey in August 2011, per togoactu.com and many other news sites, and was in the squad for their CAN2012 qualifier against Botswana in September, per Togo Football Federation. Note that a player's FIFA Tournament Statistics are just that: their stats in FIFA tournaments, i.e. World Cup (senior, under-20 and under-17), Confederations Cup and Olympics, not friendlies or competitions organised by one of the continental confederations. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY as he's made a international appearance for Togo. JMHamo (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Struway2 Nfitz (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Struway2, I withdraw my nomination. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 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. Wizardman 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CMDportal[edit]

CMDportal (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:ORG. Seems like thinly disguised advertisement about the company. Mr RD 14:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per above, plus the buzzwords and lack of concrete information about said company makes it very hard to justify keeping. Alanl (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failure to assert the notability of the subject. Alexius08 (talk) 05:32, 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. Wizardman 17:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Răzvan Grădinaru[edit]

Răzvan Grădinaru (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)

Contested Prod on the grounds that the player had made one appearance in the Round of 32 in the Romanian Cup. WP:NFOOTY is quite clear that a player must have played in a fully professional league. there is no mention of cup competitions. Obvious additional GNG problems given the player has made only three appearances full stop. Fenix down (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. While Cup matches are not covered one way or the other by NFOOTBALL, traditionally we have considered a player notable if he has played in a Cup match between two teams from fully professional leagues. However, the Cup appearance that this player made was against a very minor team and so he does not meet this criteria. GiantSnowman 13:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, and his cup appearance was against a lower division club, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – no indication the player meets the general notability guideline. Has not played in a fully professional league to meet football-specific criteria, either. C679 20:32, 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) 01:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fai Falamoe[edit]

Fai Falamoe (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 boxer, most of what's reported is by association and notability is not inherited. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and appears to fail WP:NMMA (correct me if I'm wrong!). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable boxer.Mdtemp (talk) 17:57, 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) 01:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zana (pornographic actress)[edit]

Zana (pornographic actress) (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 individual. Previously Proded as "fails PORNBIO and the GNG; no awards, only nominations, and no reliably sourced biographical content". This still applies. Finnegas (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG. Unsourced BLP. Mindblowingly vapid stub, failing to meet even the typically low standard for vacuous fluff that we've come to expect of porn bios. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my original prod, quoted above. (PROD removed by an editor apparently unfamiliar with current consensus and related revisions to the relevant SNG.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No secondary source content, present, or source-able. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 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 Pinoy Big Brother. Content can be merged from history as desired with attribution. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Remperas[edit]

Cathy Remperas (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 appear any significance after Pinoy Big Brother and has only minor roles in several episodes of ABS-CBN shows and does not add extra notability, fails WP:BLP1E. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect to Pinoy Big Brother or to the article for Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up (if it exists). I !voted "weak keep" in the article's first AfD back in 2010, but my new search didn't show any of the sources that I found before (apart from those covering her time in the PBB house). Weird. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:14, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:15, 21 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) 01:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Bhatia[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Ref cited are either not reliable sources OR do not mention his name; like here & here Cheers AKS 10:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is an chaos and based on social media. No reliable sources. The Banner talk 20:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I could see (searching on his surname) never mentioned in the sources, so hoax is possible. The Banner talk 20:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. User Myrights removed the AfD message manually. I have posted a message on his Talkpage. Requesting admin attention. Cheers AKS 21:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just noticed that this user also had deleted this discussion. Cheers AKS 21:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks arunsingh16 and The banner all the references links of the shows videos the person has done and the related articles links have been updated

thanks for your Guidance i appreciate your time spared — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywrites (talk • contribs) 06:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude but at least 16 of your 28 sources are unusable as source to establish notability. The Banner talk 19:07, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sign of notability. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The valid refs don't mention him and the bad ones do. Nothing notable about him. First time I've seen Pinterest as a ref before. Sadly, it won't be the last. Bgwhite (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

An actor and a performer's notability shall be proven by the contribution he has done to television and other media contribution of this person has been indicated through the Youtube links of the Television Shows Performed by the individual and i believe youtube is the best source to capture and save Live TV. please go though the links and Check the shows performed by him on TV

If you find that Entertaining and Genuine please vote in favor of the article, so that this article can be saved and future upcoming contributions shall be added.

Thanks for your time and support.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywrites (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, his notability has to be proven by independent, reliable sources, not by fancruft or social media. The Banner talk 11:10, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tehmeena Afzal[edit]

Tehmeena Afzal (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)

Wjmummert placed the AfD template in the article leaving the following comment: This girl is incredibly beautiful, but lets be honest, she works at a Nissan dealership, and she is hardly notable other than her nationality, which you will have a tough time proving makes her notable. she is the ONLY playboy miss social on wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The opening just shouts "this person is not notable". We create articles on models who have had significant careers, not ones who get one chance to feature in a magazine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Really not seeing any evidence that she is notable. Mabalu (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too soon. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:51, 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 Pinoy Big Brother (season 2). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Quebral[edit]

Bruce Quebral (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 have only little notability outside of Pinoy Big Brother and though fails WP:BLP1E, but appears only in minor roles in fewer episodes of Philippine TV shows. ApprenticeFan ^work 10:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother or to the article for the season he participated in (if applicable). No notability yet outside of PBB. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:11, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 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) 01:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZenDay[edit]

ZenDay (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 software. Wikipedia is not a list of business or applications, and none of the principals of the company - nor the company itself - appear notable enough to redirect to. ES&L 11:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: The Google India note has the initial taste of notability, but being that they are a vendor of the software, that dims its significance. The other AppTimes item seems to be a non-notable blog with few readers; the AndroidPipe review a mere three paragraphs, and the unsigned TalkForumNYC piece has a hypy stench that suggests that the unnamed author may have some connection with the product. As such, I'm not finding the needed notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 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) 01:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Resolution Network, Australia[edit]

Conflict Resolution Network, Australia (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)

Two years without any references or sources provided. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete blatantly fails WP:ORG. almost a speedy. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of sources. Alexius08 (talk) 05:34, 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) 01:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Austring[edit]

Curtis Austring (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 hockey player, complete failure of WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Never has played professional hockey, has spent his career in amateur senior leagues. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator. Ravenswing 11:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect to Dr. Randy Gregg Award. Meets criteria of WP:NCOLLATH and a quick search for sources demonstrates he passes GNG. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four 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. 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) 15:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If you've found sources that pass the GNG, why haven't you added them to the article? How could a redirect possibly be appropriate for an article that passes the GNG? In any event, NCOLLATH’s criteria refers explicitly to American collegiate sports; Canadian collegiate hockey, by contrast, is far less notable and thus does not fall under the guideline.

  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 18:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. NN player. Local/routine coverage only. And we've been through this before with you Dolovis, NCOLLATH was built around and refers to the NCAA. CIS does not generate the coverage to warrant such a presumption. Please stop with the bad faith time-wasting arguments. Resolute 18:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search turns up no sources to meet GNG. Anything I found was local or routine. NCOLLATH specifically refers to American collegiate sports, not Canadian. These wikilawyering attempts get tiring after awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Also fails NCOLLATH, which is more towards American college athletes from my experience. If Canadian collegiate athletes are also covered, I would need to see the discussion that supports that. Patken4 (talk) 21:06, 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) 01:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Campbell (ice hockey, born 1979)[edit]

Ryan Campbell (ice hockey, born 1979) (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 hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played several years in the lower minors without distinction. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator. Ravenswing 11:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Dolovis (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect to Braehead Clan#2012–13 Season. This player has played nine years and over 400 games as a professional. Note: When this ice hockey bio article was created it met the criteria for inclusion under NHOCKEY for playing over 100 pro games, and also for playing in Great Britain's top professional league. Recently, however, the NHOCKEY bar has been raised, and this nominator has been on a tear to delete articles which now may fall short of the newly raised bar. The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting in the last four 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 many 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) 15:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As you well know, "playing over 100 pro games" has never satisfied NHOCKEY's criteria, and is a blatant mischaracterization of the same: the old guideline stated that a player who played 100 games in a top level minor league was presumed notable, and the CHL (in which the subject largely played) was explicitly not one of those leagues. Britain's fringe leagues have never been considered as conferring presumptive notability. In any event, notability criteria have been tightened many times on Wikipedia, and "grandfathering" articles has never been permitted under deletion policy.

  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 doing so. This article, for instance, was created over three months ago, and you haven't made an edit to it since. Why not? Ravenswing 18:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search has not turned up any sources to meet GNG. And the fact that they don't currently meet NHOCKEY all points to a delete. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. British Elite League isn't considered a top professional league according to WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Patken4 (talk) 21:06, 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) 01:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Campbell (ice hockey, born 1976)[edit]

Ryan Campbell (ice hockey, born 1976) (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 hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played several years in the lower minors without distinction. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator. Ravenswing 11:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect to List of All-ECAC Hockey Teams. Note: The sheer volume of AfD nominations by this editor (45-plus and counting 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 many of these AfDs require searching pre-Internet 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) 15:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 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. Would you like, by the bye, to proffer a reason to Keep, valid or otherwise? Ravenswing 18:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn player. Also, I would like to thank you Dolovis for admitting that you don't even bother researching whether the players are notable before you create the articles. This is the kind of admission that should probably be used in consideration of a topic ban preventing you from creating any further articles. Resolute 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search shows no sources that meet GNG and he fails NHOCKEY. And I would have to agree with Resolute here. Admitting you don't research before you create an article is something that should be discussed in a topic ban on article creation. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Making All-ECAC rookie team is not a sufficent claim to notability. Patken4 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]