< 9 July	11 July >

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Feldman (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer, even the references are just passing mentions on his relationship to siblings. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above. Frmorrison (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boxrec shows him with a total of 5 fights. He doesn't meet the notability requirements ofWP:NBOX or have the coverage required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NBOX, nor is there anything approaching sufficient in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 14 July 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 (CSD G4). --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Niazi (1991-)[edit]

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

Lack of third-party coverage. Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Nothing to discuss, no time to lose. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the person seems like a nice guy but he doesn't have notability yet. Frmorrison (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable leader for non-notable organization. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reason for Speedy Deletion (not a second vote) - I tried to move the article to eliminate the parenthesis and saw that it was impossible. Why? Because the title Daniel Niazi is protected, possibly previously deleted page. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both general notability and biographic notability criteria. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:29, 11 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burning on Fort Itaipu Sentinels[edit]

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

No independent and reliable sources provide any serious or in-depth coverage of this obscure Brazilian UFO conspiracy tale. The claims made in the article text don't stand up to WP:REDFLAG, and the bizarre quotation ("alarmated"?) attributed to an unnamed Air Force official is frankly absurd. Finally, the title of the article seems to be a non-English speaker's failed attempt at English grammar. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is largely a translation of the Portuguese article that appears to me to have the same low sourcing standard. Not sure if the Portuguese Wikipedia has similar sourcing standards to ours, but, if so, they should be alerted somehow. jps (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any reliable sources for this. I have read quite a few UFO books and I have never heard of this incident. Apart from being non-notable the article probably also contains errors due to unreliable sources and dodgy translation. Goblin Face (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, consider taking a look at WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 20:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, at least half of those sources are fine. I added a new, working link to the official embassy document about the incident. The quotation is from a work by a notable and respected USMC official and ufologist, as showed at the source. And I just found a third, independent one via a quick Google search. Regarding the title and the grammatical errors, those can easily be fixed, that's no argument for deletion. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 20:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're claiming a certain level of independence for your sources, but I'm not seeing it. Are there any non-believers who have covered this incident? I cannot seem to find such sources. jps (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I will admit that I have difficulty evaluating these types of articles that are built only upon what some people have alleged has happened. To me, the question here is not "Does the sourcing supports the topic as a notable incident?" but rather "Does the sourcing supports this topic as a notable allegation?" If taken on good faith, the only independent, reliable source that I can find is an undated primary source document out of the Brazilian Embassy that seems to indicate all information about this alleged incident comes from a report by "Dr. Olivio Fontes".[1] For this to be a notable allegation, there would need to be coverage of the allegation in multiple sources that are independent and reliable. There are a few GBook hits for "Itaipu" + "UFO" that are likely reliable sources for the fact that Fontes made some allegations, but given the nature of those books I questions whether they are "independent" of the subject matter. They are certainly not reliable for presenting the details of those allegations as fact. Location (talk) 19:19, 14 July 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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bertram K. and Nina Fletcher Little[edit]

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

This page has been without any references for over 7 years. It thus violates the principal of verifiability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Did you even bother to do a simple Google search. I can find plenty of sources that can satisfy WP:GNG, NY Times, Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, SeaCoastonline, The Morning Call, Havard Magazine. There are many other websites and books that are devoted and mention their collections of folk art over a period of 50 sum years. Also is a separate article on the historic museum they owned and still exists called Cogswell's Grant. and other collections are also featured in many other museums like Baltimore Museum of art. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per sources found by JayJay, I'm lost as to why this was even nominated since Google Searches is full of books, news & whatnot, It's clear the nom never bothered searching for anything sadly. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If people want to keep this article, they should at a minimum actually add the sources to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any other issues with this article, remember AfD is not for cleanup. I am expanding the article currently and sources have been added. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to JayJay's efforts. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per blatant lack of WP:BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. --Cavarrone 06:14, 13 July 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 Userfy. Userfying to User:Chris troutman/Karen Lindsey per request Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Lindsey[edit]

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

There is no indication she meets either the general notability guidelines or the guidelines for academics. Her works and positions do not seem to make her a notable academic. The sources are either too slight or too connected with her to pass the GNG John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of the two links does not even work. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I have a stack of references but I'm not ready to attempt a re-write. I'd like to take this and re-work it before moving it back into main namespace. I don't think it should stay, as it is currently. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Franzese[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - Cwobeel (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill law professor who does not pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the massive tidy up & sourcing done by Tomwsulcer (Thanks Tomwsulcer), I was extremely surprised to see it improved so much!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. GS h-index of 11. Not quite there for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep. The AfD was understandable, considering the meager lines, the promotional nature, the utter lack of references. But a clue to me about notability (I understand the pageview measure is not an official guideline, but it is helpful as an indicator, IMHO) was huge pageviews, even 600+ pageviews on one day. Plus, the article has been around here awhile in Wikipedia, 5 years, without deletion; plus previous versions of the article were much longer, but unsourced, so they got trimmed substantially, rightly so, to stubbify the article; but I think much of the previous version was nevertheless correct (albeit rather promotional, perhaps written by a student or colleague?, that is, somebody unfamiliar with Wikiquette?). Still, it is good the article was AfD-ed to bring it to attention. Searching, I found numerous reliable references, added. Notable legal scholar, legal educator, ethics advocate, many many sources. Revamped article should stay.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Tomwsulcer. When I checked I could not find any sources, but you did and it worked. Article should be kept, but there are still issues with the article that need to be addressed in the normal course of editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cwobeel yes the sources were a bit buried, whats cool is she is talented in so many areas that it is hard to identify one area of expertise. Yes the article can be improved like everything here in Wikipedia it is all one giant work-in-progress, and it is good to challenge defective articles since it brings more eyes and hopefully improvement if it is possible.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now that it's better sourced. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Johnpacklambert that this is a very "run-of-the-mill" law professor that does not pass notability guidelines. Will note that frequently the professor's resume has been posted -- in full -- to Wikipedia, which frequently goes unnoticed for years. To me this is circumstantial evidence of promotion/+ a *lack* of notability. (Will admit that I gave an initial stab at a clean-up, but did not have much time to do work as good as has been recently done by you all). The statistics are useful but the way they are presented is misleading (through no fault of Tomwsulcer I will add): due to the manner in which bar preparation is conducted in the U.S., many tens of thousands of students are likely exposed to the lectures at once, during the summer months. It is logical that page views will spike during this time, before the late-summer bar examinations, but the average daily page views are much less than 600 -- and much closer to 50. Even so, page views are only circumstantial evidence of notability. Based on many of the deleted edits to this article, it appears (but cannot be verified) that the professor is popular with students -- but this is not necessarily notability. Lots of professors are popular with students. No concrete evidence or unbiased secondary source suggests that this professor passes the notability threshold. The credentials/references currently noted are very common in the field. --MaRoWi (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about being named one of the top 26 best law professors? Appearing as an expert on MSNBC? Did you see this write-up praising Franzese? None of this suggests run of the mill but an influential and notable leader in her field. And the overriding test of notability is not WP:ACADEMIC but WP:GNG and she easily surpasses the GNG with 20 references, including substantial coverage in reliable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw those references when I said that no evidence existed indicating notability. I don't understand your basis for granting Michael Hunter Schwartz such authority for his case study. As I noted when I edited out a misrepresentation that characterized that reference as a *ranking* of 26 law professors, it is in fact not a ranking. It is a case study of 26 professors that the author chose for whatever reason. There is no qualitative or quantitative analysis performed in that work that compares those professors to the rest of the field. Even assuming it were a ranking, I do not believe that William H. Bowen School of Law is exactly renown for its opinion on the legal education system. I note that many Yale/Harvard law professors here -- with careers that go back to the 1950s, much more impressive clerkships (Supreme Court), and many more publications -- have mere stubs of articles. I would argue that *they* might not even pass the notability threshold, either -- and it is highly likely that at least 20 references could be found for them, too. As for MSNBC, many law professors and other attorneys also appear as legal experts on network television. CNN employs a few regulars in-house. Why does this confer notability? Evaluating all of these references in context, it is clear that this professor is not notable. You suggest earlier that "whats cool is she is talented in so many areas that it is hard to identify one area of expertise" -- isn't this an admission that it you cannot identify an area of expertise? Please look at the profesisonal website pages for virtually any law professor at any law school; you will see a large number of comparable references. If this professor is notable, then we should get to work making pages for every law professor in the United States. --MaRoWi (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hunter Schwartz is acknowledged as an authority on legal education who is a law school dean. He is well-qualified to write with two other academics on the 26 best law school teachers. They used a rigorous selection methodology which included nominations, screening, even personal visits. Check out the methodology for selecting the 26. Few professors are chosen to appear as experts on MSNBC since they are vetted by television executives beforehand. Why does author Richard Reuben write the following: I later mentioned how impressed I was with Paula to a colleague of mine who teaches property, and he told me just who she is: she is a respected property casebook author and scholar, a leader in the AALS Section on Teaching Methods, a star on the Bar Bri circuit, and, at the time, a seven-time winner of Seton Hall’s teaching award. She is now up to nine. Who is Reuben? A chaired professor at the University of Missouri, well qualified to write such a book. Franceze is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I believe you are grossly mis-stating and representing these sources. I quote from WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. You're using Schwartz's university profile and university page on his deanship to decide whether to give weight to his book and a methodology that I do not believe stands for the proposition you continue to cite it for. You then cite to a "nine-time" award bestowed on Franzese by the institution that employs her. None of these sources are independent of the subject (and this is a basis that Reuben cites for his opinion -- so I strongly question its value). There are only a handful of sources, even including Schwartz's book, that might stand for the proposition of notability, but again WP:GNG: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." I do not think a significant level of coverage exists here, given the handful of sources. This page has a history of being abused for promotional purposes (which continues inasmuch as the Schwartz work is misrepresented). You may be unfamiliar with the legal education industry, but awards of this type are commonplace, and could essentially be considered promotional materials. Media appearances -- and you only cite to one network -- are commonplace for law professors at Franzese's level. You do not address this point, but I stress it, the type of information you rely on for notability would extend notability to most, if not all, law professors at accredited U.S. law schools. I do not think this can be the case. We may have to agree to disagree, but to me it is becoming very clear that this professor is not notable, and I wonder whether your defense of the article has more to do with the work you've put in it than the subject matter at hand (I note you've given this article as much weight as the one for Richard Allen Epstein, for example, and much more than the one-liner for Trevor Morrison, who clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg). Will you fully flesh out these pages next? What is the distinction? Strong delete. --MaRoWi (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Schwartz is a reliable source. Professor Schwartz has 20 years of experience in legal education and is widely considered a leading national expert in law teaching and learning says NTXE News, and Schwartz et al selected Franzese as one of the top 26 law school professors in the US; Publishers Weekly reviewed Schwartz's book here. Overall it is an excellent indication of Franzese's notability. That Seton Hall awarded Franzese best teacher award for nine years is not a COI -- the school could have chosen any of the other law professors there, but they didn't; Seton Hall chose her out of 80+ full-time professors. That means something. If those awards were commonplace, why didn't the other 79 law professors get them? And nine years she earned this award. I doubt you could prove your assertion that all law professors at a certain level appear on MSNBC as experts; my sense it is very few are chosen, and they are selected because they are vetted by TV producers. Your references to other lawyers and whether they appear in Wikipedia is irrelevant to this discussion. My interest in this subject is simply that Franzese meets the GNG. Simple as that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this point I think we're at an impasse. I think "What the Best Law Teachers Do" is a non-quantitative, highly subjective work on teaching methods (essentially case studies) and it's a misrepresentation to suggest it reflects a determination that the professors studied are somehow quantitatively "the best". I think this is essentially the only distinctive source that exists for Franzese, and that isn't enough to get past the GNG guideline requiring substantial recognition. If you've ever watched MSNBC, you'll have noticed that law professors are frequent guest commentators (in every sub-field of law), and therefore Franzese's occasional contributions are not notable. I believe you simply ignore the COI issues present. I believe you ignore the weak academic impact indicated by previous posters. I believe you take every other piece of evidence -- like pointing out a seasonal peak 600+ page views but omitting the fact that the average is generously around 50 -- out of context. The guidelines only make sense in context; you apply them as absolutes, you can eventually make any page seem notable. We can keep talking past each other, but I think it is time for other people (e.g., not people defending their own work on this page) to weigh in. --MaRoWi (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. What about being chairwoman of the NJ Ethics Commission, serving with three New Jersey governors -- this is hardly "run of the mill" stuff. Certainly you will not argue that every law professor gets to be appointed chairwoman of the NJ Ethics Commission, like they all take turns like its musical chairs. Or, winning the Rosenman Prize at Columbia Law School -- is this another of your COI awards (possible spurious reasoning: Columbia University was where Franzese went to school QED Columbia has a vested interest in awarding the Rosenman Prize to her, like maybe Columbia gives every law school graduate a Rosenman Prize). Be realistic. When the Philadelphia Inquirer wants to quote an expert on ethics, to comment on the Christie bridge lane closure scandal, they chose [Franzese -- clearly a sign of notability to be quoted on this subject in a big city daily. Maybe you're fixated on deleting every lawyer who isn't Clarence Darrow but clearly Franzese meets Wikipedia's GNG requirements in spades.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:42, 9 July 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - simply put, the article now passes WP:BIO as proper references have now been added, and the article salvaged by the user Tomwsulcer, who has also succeeded in demonstrating the reliability of his sources. Understandable nomination at the time. Flip^and Flopped ツ 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5. All this and nobody mentioned her named chair already? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article made no mention of her named chair or most other things when I nominated it. Beyond that, I have always been uncertain if all named chairs qualify for that rule, or only those at some universities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 11 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Poe[edit]

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

This article was a huge mess before I cleaned it up, which involved deleting almost everything in the article, because a great majority of it was irrelevant, what wasn't was libellous, and what wasn't either was promotional and peacock-y. Most of it is unsourced and I'm struggling to find sources. I simply question notability altogether. He seems to have done a few things here and there but none of it comes close to the notability criteria in any meaningful way. There's been a lot of COI editing on the article in the past, and I harbour suspicions as to the article creator's conflict of interest also. It was nominated for speedy deletion (G11) a few years ago but was overturned. Julia\^talk 19:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was about to AFD it as well. I tried to find something that could be used to source what's in the bio but there just isn't anything (it's also a common name, which doesn't help). Fails WP:BIO in my opinion. Looks like a textbook vanity selfbio that slipped trough the cracks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason notability should be presumed in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. As observed by others, Googling turns up nothing useful. Though not by itself a reason to delete, I agree with FreeRangeFrog, that this is probably a vanity autobiography. Msnicki (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basically an unsourced autobiography. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 14 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn Packet Solutions[edit]

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

Non-notable. Notability is not inherited. I couldn't find anything on this company except that they were purchased by Juniper a few years back. Zell Faze (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Not that many ways to say no WP:RS are out there. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No there there. No WP:RS. What else is there to discuss? Msnicki (talk) 18:07, 15 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tunngle[edit]

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

Article seems to have primarily been written to promote the software (see versions prior to recent revert). I've searched for reviews or overviews from reputable sources and come up empty-handed, just the standard few blogs and download sites. Doesn't appear this meets the notability requirements. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Earlier today I deleted spam entries for it in other articles. Seems to have been added by those wishing to promote the software. Dream Focus 18:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and may be promotional. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails software notability. Borderline promotional. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:NOTABILITY. Feels promotional as well. Possible WP:COI. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Lathrop Gilb[edit]

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

She does not seem to pass any notability requirements for academics. The one she might pass is making a big enough contribution in a field to be notable for such, but the article as such does not establish that, and as a Metro-Detroit resident getting an obit in the Detroit News, that does not quite pass it. Her mentioned book has a just over 200 citations according to google scholar, but I am thinking that is not enough to establish notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Wikipedia is not for obits. Notability not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete agree as per above, although I did not do a depth search. If article creator wants an article on this topic then please study-up on reliable sources and consider reading How to create a Wikipedia article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:02, 12 July 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gilbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable cinematographer. Almost none of the references are independent and the story of meeting his parents is covered by WP:BLP1E. Cinematographers can be notable (see Category:New Zealand cinematographers) but this is judged by independent references and awards; these people also tend to be late-career professionals, not three years in. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see links to a book have been added. The best URL for this is https://itunes.apple.com/nz/book/my-russian-side/id857509909?mt=11 which makes it clear that it's self published. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notablity is not only only because of him being a cinematographer. In addition, he is equally if not more notable because of his origin as a Russian boy adopted by a New Zealand family and how his story attracted public attention at length and led to serious discussion about adoptions and search for one's origins. It became subject of an auto-documentary broadcast on NZ media as well and helped others start a quest to find their own birth parents. Keep. werldwayd (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly another attempt at self-promotion which, IMO, violates COI. Multiple citations give the impression of WP:N. Take out the cites which fail RS and those which are self-published and the remainder seems trivial on the whole. This person may be slightly interesting, but that does not equal notable (in the general, not wiki, sense at least). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the most obvious RS failures (Twitter and Facebook and IMDB when used as a biographical source). I suspect there are more...DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BLP1E and fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I noted above no indication of sufficient notability from multiple independent and reliable sources. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I see there is a lot of notability on this article. I have no idea why this was nominated for deletion when several admins who have been editing articles for years have been editing this page since it was made. There are notable sources such as 'http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11232549' ,'http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday/s2014-ep1-video-5821764' , 'https://www.facebook.com/SundayTVNZ/posts/802276326449214?stream_ref=10-title=Sunday' , 'http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/alex-gilbert-my-journey-home-russia-5820767' and 'http://search.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/?q=Alex%20Gilbert&refx=&uilang=en'. Yes these pages are reliable as they are New Zealand media and television websites. If you look over on his website you can see what he does to help other adoptive families in New Zealand. See 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3pFneJF144'. You can also see a clip from his TVNZ story here 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpUZV4p-ak8'. As some other editors have said Delete for this article they claim to be checking all the sources to see if they are reliable. I see the twitter and IMDB were removed. That makes sense of course, but there is still a lot of reliable sources remaining on the page. I feel that he is not notable as a New Zealand cinematographer and that should be removed but notable as his other work with Russian adoption. --122.57.251.189 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC) — 122.57.251.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That is the worst collection of useless sources I have seen in a long time. They are all either deadlinks, fail to even mention the subject, or are patently unsuitable such as Facebook. SpinningSpark 17:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry they were all linked incorrectly. They all had a ' at the end. http://search.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/?q=Alex%20Gilbert&refx=&uilang=en , http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/alex-gilbert-my-journey-home-russia-5820767 , http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11232549 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpUZV4p-ak8 Thanks , --122.57.251.189 (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first link is to a library search and the only relevant result that I can see is Gilbert's own book which does not add to notability since it is not independent. The second one is blog by Gilbert, not relevant for the same reason. SpinningSpark 09:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability is established, I have added a reliable source and the subject has already passed the notability because electronic media is also a reliable source.Justice007 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11232549 is not reliable; it's an interview-based puff piece. Most of the article is directly attributed to the subject and there is no sign of any independent journalistic research or critical evaluation of what the subject is saying. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That you think a puff piece while it passes the notabilty obviously, how much do you know about the news field, it is very common to ask the readers to contribute their writings, photos and etc. It is your personal view and opinion that does not require for the rules of wikipedia, how can you say electronic media is not a reliable source, that are all third party sources. What you mention WP:BLP1E, please read it again with more much care--the subject passes general notability as well. What do you mean no sign of any independent journalistic research??!!. The interview is taken by a journalist who is the reporter of the newspaper, take a look at these--- [2], [3], [4], [5], please read that thoroughly, may you understand the fairness. I am very sorry to say that I doubt your request of proposed deletion of the article while you have even not taken a look thoroughly at the newspaper and its credibility. I hope this helps you to be fair and constructive.Justice007 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that's a reliable source, but a single reliable source doesn't ensure that a subject is notable; WP:GNG seeks significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, and even that only grants a presumption of notability, to be considered along with other guidelines such as those dealing with single events. Agyle (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely an Articles for Deletion nomination shouldn't take this long to resolve? It is clearly notable. This was nominated on the 19th of June. --122.57.251.189 (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes as long as it takes. Three relistings is not uncommon if there's ongoing discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:51, 9 July 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, SpinningSpark 17:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:ENT, tried real hard to find rational to keep this, but this BLP article is sourced entirely on non-reliable sources on top of failing the above argument. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Solarral. The NZ herald is the most circulated newspaper on NZ. Which that source on his page is reliable. Also TVNZ is the biggest TV network in nz which is also a reliable source. He is also the main subject on both of these sources. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gilbert is a non-notable cinematographer. After cutting out all the notability-irrelevant sources we are left with a New Zealand TV documentary and subsequent New Zealand newspaper coverage of his meeting with his birth mother in Russia. Frankly, TV makes these kind of documentaries all the time with fly-on-the-wall following of adopted children, homeless people, drug addicts, victims of scams, families on benefit etc etc etc. To my mind this kind of thing falls under WP:NOTNEWS. The subjects of this kind of coverage have no ongoing notabiity. The only difference in this case is that the subject has written a book and has some aptitude for self-publicity. SpinningSpark 09:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All three criteria for WP:BLP1E seem to be met, which suggests "we should generally avoid having an article" on such a subject. The claim of notability is based on Gilbert being the subject of a TV news piece and an article about his finding his birth parents. The amount and duration of coverage were limited, and fall short of establishing Gilbert as an ongoing notable individual. Another point brought up is he wrote an autobiography, but this was self-published, and while it may be interesting it is not indicative of notability. ––Agyle (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really neither hesitate to express my view towards the wiki-rules nor bother how one contributes. If there is lack of description in the exact concept of the notability, I see there is no any medician yet to avoid "voting" that must be accepted.Justice007 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tried to say how notable he is. First of all he is not under a one event subject. He appeared on a TV show in NZ which had the highest ratings of the night on TV One. He also had a very notable and reliable newspaper article in the NZ Herald. - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11232549 The biggest Newspaper in NZ. He also has a book in all major NZ Libraries and is also appearing on NZ TV again- http://alexgilbert.co.nz/catch-cook-world/ & http://www.freeviewnz.tv/tv-guide.aspx (look at Choice TV 12 - 6PM- 21 August) . Someone that actually lives in NZ should be commenting on this nomination to actually know how reliable the sources are. I still feel that he is notable. He also did a talk with Adoption families in Auckland, NZ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3pFneJF144 & http://www.icanz.gen.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=271&Itemid=236 (Look at the About page on this website). Surely all of these add up to Notability. Especially the NZ Herald link. Also the amount of coverage was not limited on his story. It was played on NZ TV on the highest played TV Channel in NZ- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_One_(New_Zealand) . Here is the ratings for the show he was featured on - http://www.throng.co.nz/2014/02/tv-ratings-2-february-2014/ also the on Demand link - http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday/s2014-ep1-video-5821764 and also the extra page that is on the TVNZ website- http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/alex-gilbert-my-journey-home-russia-5820767 .

Thank You and I hope this changes your minds wherever you are in the world. --122.57.251.189 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (again...). WP:BLP1E. 1292simon (talk) 09:26, 20 July 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. Clear WP:NOTDIR violation even ignoring possible self-promotion issues. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All UC Davis alumni by department[edit]

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

I can't find an appropriate CSD criteria, but this incipient list is apparently trying to create an alumni directory, contrary to WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Additionally, WP:LISTPEOPLE applies, as a list of non-notable people has little or no use in an international encyclopedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would clearly be a directory. There is already a list of notable UCD grads. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created it because (1) there is no equivalent "location" on the internet for these kinds of directories (Facebook is NOT public) and (2) grads from that department *are* notable as PhD researchers, professors, etc. Are hockey players and city politicians more "notable"? Is there a wiki-alumni out there? (I am a fan of the "inclusive" wikipedia) Davidzet (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You may want to consider using a place like Wikia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a general purpose hosting facility. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ps... I just read a series of edits by you, Kitfoxxe, and I see that there are many rules and protocols. I am not sure why "directory" is banned and where "notable" is defined, but why don't we wait a few weeks to see if this page turns useful for the small community of interested people (me and other UCD grads) as well as people trying to understand more about our department. An encyclopedia, after all, is a reference. Davidzet (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons already given: it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to list every graduate of every college in the world, and there's nothing special about the person on this list. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of every bit of trivial information in the world, and therefore is somewhat selective. This information belongs on the UC Davis website, not here.

WP:N defines what notable means: just because someone is a researcher or university faculty member doesn't mean they're notable if they're not written about in properly-published third-party sources; WP:SCHOLAR explains what it takes to be a notable academic, and basically it requires you to have made a significant contribution to learning beyond what is typical for an academic. Aside from that, lists are generally expected to have more than one member. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I'm not talking about "every graduate in the world" so please refrain. the list has one member -- me -- because editors are so fast to delete pages that others cannot add their information. What do I do to claim notable? Do I list my two books, several dozen research articles, teaching at different universities? Interviews with dozens of media outlets?. UC Davis does NOT make this information available -- except for marketing credit cards -- and wikipedia IS the go-to source for information. Why are GDP lists more important than PhD lists -- to the right person? It's not like wikipedia is running out of pages. The Egyptian empire is gone, but wikipedia maintains a list of alumni - may of them non-notable. Davidzet (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, only one !vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The purpose of this list is explicitly to list people who are not eligible for List of University of California, Davis alumni. This is clearly a case of directory / social network. The list includes links to resumes, facebook pages etc. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ until you tell me a better user-edited public place for this information AND tell me how the list "ruins" wikipedia. You're saying, in other words, "wikipedia is not for this" except that's a subjective statement AND there's no other place that IS better for this. I'm looking for some help here, and all I'm getting is bureaucracy. Davidzet (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Many "notable" alumni could fit on this list as well as having their own wikipedia pages. I could write my own, from what I see, but (1) that page is organized badly ("business" "other") and (2) it's ALSO good to have a complete list, rather than a partial list of Aggies who bother to promote themselves. (I doubt that ALL personal pages are written by third parties...) Davidzet (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You may comment as much as you like, but you should only express your "keep" once. As for getting no help, it's explained to you why this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Nobody is going to help you build an article which doesn't belonf here in the first place. I pointed you to Wikia as an alternative earlier on. I suggest you look into that instead. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret George[edit]

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

I find little evidence that George is a historian. The sources for her historical fiction work do not seem to be sufficiently independent of her or reliable. There seems to be no indication that her works have received the notice we generally require for people to pass the author inclusion criteria. Publishing multiple historical novels is not enough to make someone notable, and as far as I can tell that is all she has done. If people can find reliable sources I would be open to inclusion, but my preliminary search just revealed passing references in places that trace basically all published works, no indication of major contributions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close - see The Memoirs of Cleopatra, New York Times bestseller, [6] and Mary, called Magdalene, New York Times piece here. Plenty of links on those two pages alone to expand the bio page. She's a well-known author of historical fiction. Victoria (tk) 21:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - she has respectable web-site and seems fantastic lady... She has fan-base. It is frankly menacing. I created this article or not, I think, she deserves to be here and I will expand her article just don't delete it, please. The Mad Hatter (talk)

Keep, close, and expand - Although this article is poorly written and lacks sources, Margaret George is a well-known and reputable historical novelist (not a "historian"). Her books are routinely reviewed in major newspapers and book outlets. One review in the Washington Post said, "If it’s by Margaret George, it’s probably worth reading. George ... is a major player on the stage of historical fiction." The Bryn Mawr Classical Review says, "Margaret George is a well-established author of lengthy, well-researched historical novels". 32.218.40.8 (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve the article. Easily passes WP:NOTABILITY per above and per Google search. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 11 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Germany football rivalry[edit]

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

This page was arbitrarily created ahead of the final (recentism) and has no sources but is an excuse for a disambiguation page. We don't create non-existant info...that's the textbook case of OR Lihaas (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above statements are ridiculous. Couple of reference s below http://thebiglead.com/2014/07/10/germany-argentina-rivalry-history-world-cup-final-2014/

http://m.sportskeeda.com/football/fifa-world-cup-2014-argentina-and-germany-renew-rivalry-final

They may not have a neighbouly rivalry or one which has political connetations like Argentina England..... but which have played three world cup finals and a few aacrimonious quarters including one with a brawl. Recentism claims would carry weight if the final was the first meeting.

202.69.12.28 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of the article is valid so Argentina and Germany are going to dispute their third World Cup final next Sunday, beyond previous matches between both sides in group stages. But the article is very short and poorly sourced. - Fma12 (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep"- Needs work, but has improved a lot.

101.50.101.184 (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well trolling IP...this article shows nothing but a log of previous meetings with nothing to cite a RIVARLY. And recentism - NOTNEWSLihaas (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now, I believe that it would be best to delete the page. Yes, they may have played against each other in two consecutive World Cups (1986 and 1990), but the way the article is currently set up will not be adequate. Please take the Mexico–United States soccer rivalry page for example. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article confirms that the two teams have played each other quite a few times, but that does not a rivalry make. I can see no evidence of rivalry here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea where the author gets the idea that because the teams have played many times in the past, including in tournaments, a rivalry exists between the two. This is a list of games played, with no evidence of existance of an actual rivalry, much less its notability. Reywas92^Talk 04:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure OR. Per WP:NRIVALRY, the fact that teams have met a number of times does not in itself create a notable rivalry, significant reliable coverage of the rivalry, not simply routine match reporting is required to satisfy GNG. There is none of that here. Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a notable sporting rivalry. Giant Snowman 11:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have searched for "Argentina Germany rivalry" and found the following
- Germany vs. Argentina: A Great World Cup Rivalry "Brazil-Argentina and Germany-Netherlands may be the fiercest rivalries in international soccer. But Germany and Argentina still have quite the conjoined history, arguably more than either of the other two in the World Cup."
- FIFA World Cup 2014: Argentina and Germany will renew their rivalry in the final "Argentina and Germany look to renew their rivalry in the 2014 World Cup Final"
- World Cup 2014: Argentina's & Germany's History Between the Soccer Nations "Although the two countries are separated by more than 7,000 miles, the rivalry is fiercer than ever."
- Argentina vs Germany is a royal football rivalry "Argentina versus Germany is a royal football rivalry that has produced some of the most exciting matches in previous world cups."
- Argentina vs. Germany a classic World Cup rivalry "The rivalry between Argentina and Germany is an old one, including two World Cup finals, with one victory each." Cambalachero (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ya but it needs the political history of the Nazis hiding in Argentina. And that just synthesis.

Plus creation reasoning Lihaas (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nazis do not belong in this article. Do not confuse it with Argentina–Germany relations, which is a completely different and unrelated article. Cambalachero (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See other rivalry articles that add the political context. (and its also my case in point that it doesn't have anything here)Lihaas (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is you who is saying that there is some relation between both things; so it is up to you to prove it and write about it. And remember to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS when doing so. Cambalachero (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a valid rivalry and recently there have been many reliable news sources talking about it. I call the big one bitey (talk) 19:21, 13 July 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 Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., with the amount of material merged based on our usual editorial processes at that article. There was a lot of arguments here on both sides that needed downweighting for a variety of reasons:, for lack of analysis of specific sources, for OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, and for misunderstandings of policy. A more careful analysis of sources would have nodded, for example, to WP:ORG/ORGDEPTH. Some bits of the discussion could be seen as relating to WP:AUD, and so on. Net, as to independent notability, I find a consensus in view of policy for the article not being notable, and a lack of arguments for complete deletion that leaves merge/direct the outcomes directed by WP:ATD. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel and Flavia Gernatt Family Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable small private charitable trust. Extremely few hits in a Google search, most of which track back to this article and none of which fulfill GNG, to the best of my knowledge. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In my opinion the horsebreeder is notable, the trust is not. A merge might be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As can be seen on the afd page for Flavia C. Gernatt, User:OccultZone has already verified the notability of this foundation, as have I with many associated references. That several of these pages that I have created regarding members of the Gernatt family, their businesses, and now their foundation are being attacked is proof to me that this is a system that may not be clearly understood by those who may request certain pages for deletion. The article should be kept because notability has been provided and included in the article. What more is needed? Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE As Carrite has stated above the foundation is not in and of itself notable. Although the foundation surely does wonderful and maybe needed work in and around its local area, it just does not meet the notability requirements for an article just by itself.

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(neutral note) Deciding admin should note that Carriearchdale has a history of making false and (depending on interpretation) aggressive accusations towards the creator of this article, Daniellagreen, as seen here and in other places when judging rather her vote should be taken into account : [7][8] Flip^and Flopped ツ 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding this note as I was going to but you got to it before me, Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's definitely something that impairs the user in question's judgement and her ability to fairly assess the article, in my opinion. Flip^and Flopped ツ 22:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: Carriearchdale has now been indefinitely blocked for trolling and harassment of Daniellagreen, the creator of this article. Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that Carriearchdale is continuing her harassment of me at WikiCommons, even after the above-mentioned decision was made, as can be seen at: [9]. Thank you to all for your support in that matter. I now have some sense of peace and relief. :-) Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. There are tens of thousands of such foundations in the U.S. alone; only a minuscule fraction of them are encyclopedicly notable enough for a separate article. I'm afraid the article creator's journalistic zeal has caused her to confuse journalism with encyclopedia building, in more than one case. Softlavender (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Worth a mention on the Daniel Gernatt page (where it is already mentioned, so not merge, but the section there could be expanded a bit) but doesn't merit its own article. A lot of the refs are actually about Daniel and Flavia Gernatt rather than the foundation itself. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Gernatt page: Appears to have been noted in outside, neutral, third-party sources; not a lot, perhaps, but enough. I mean, we have articles that survive AfD around here on shopping malls and amusement parks. We have Project for Awesome which seems comparable in size and endowment. Just because this editor needs to learn about how to properly use sources doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must have a sign on my forehead that reads "beat me up," lol. It would have really been nice to have received some guidance and suggestions regarding how the article can be improved rather than simply going for the jugular and doing an afd request. I know that's not required of anyone, but it would have been a gesture of courtesy to help me learn more. What's to learn and improve if the article is just deleted? What a waste, and how discouraging. These are great reasons for me to leave Wikipedia. I think I should get the award for this week on Wikipedia for being the editor who is "most discouraged." At any rate and in my perspective, the foundation is notable, and that is why I created an article about it. I did my best to reference everything. Also, the entity is a foundation that is medium-sized, as has been identified in my refs from the University at Buffalo and Urban Index out of Washington, DC. The entity has also been identified in a nationally-related book regarding such foundations, which reference I will add shortly. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella, you've certainly been very very sorely done by on Wikipedia of late, but not by AfDs, so please don't confuse the two. Having one's articles deleted are a rite of passage on Wikipedia, and the only way we really learn what's encyclopedically notable and what's not. Painful? Yes. But Wikipedia is not a personal site. Notability is not for you as the article creator, and a Wiki newbie, to decide. It's for experienced editors well versed in Wikipedia's notability standards to determine. If you are worried that your content will forever be lost, then keep a copy of the text on a user subpage or a Word document. As it stands, like any article creator, you are too close to your own work, and in this case too new to Wikipedia, to know what's encyclopedic and what confers notability. In the future, you might want to check with a mentor as to whether prospective subject matter meets Wikipedia notability standards before you pour your zealous efforts into a project. Live and learn, that's the best way to approach Wikipedia, and don't take it personally or too seriously. There are never any guarantees on Wikipedia. All the best, and happy editing, Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reminder to Montanabw that WP:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument in an AfD; only notability and other relevant policy guidelines are. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added, Foundation Grants to Individuals, recognizing this foundation as being nationally notable. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That, nor any of the citations, does not confer encyclopedic notability as a separate article. Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. I'm not seeing the significant, independent references to demonstrate notability sufficient for a separate article. Many references have been added but the depth of coverage in those sources is lacking, or absent. The Foundation is worth a mention on the page of the notable person (/people) who started it. Redirect to Daniel rather than Flavia only because his name is first in the title. Daniellagreen, don't take my comments or this discussion as a negative critique of your work. When there is an article that doesn't quite meet our standards of inclusion, however well written it might be, it can come through this process to determine the community consensus for keeping it as-is improving it, merging the content to a more appropriate location, or possibly deleting it entirely though I don't see that as a likely outcome here. It's all part of making the encyclopedia better. I hope that the recent spate of awfulness you've gone through doesn't turn you away from the project. Ivanvector (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG major published journals and newspapers are reliable sources. The point of WP:RS and WP:GNG is so that enough secondary sources exist to cover a subject from a neutral point of view, which in this article, is clearly the case. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I located and included information, and a reference, to an article from The Buffalo News that provides additional national notability for the Foundation, in regard to the loan that was provided to the Amish cheese cooperative, the loan benefiting 125 farmers, and enabling milk to be shipped throughout the country to make Muenster cheese. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella, The Buffalo News is not national notability; it's not even regional notability, as the article (which you have not linked) is not about the foundation, it's about a cheese plant. Heck, the foundation doesn't even have a website. Perhaps that's the problem. All of this material you've gathered about the foundation is appropriate for the foundation's nonexistent website, but it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Your enthusiasm is commendable, but misplaced here in this instance. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I disagree on that point; Buffalo is a major city in "upstate" New York, and its daily paper clearly meets RS. This foundation may be primarily notable at a state level, but thats all that is needed for WP:GNG. We aren't talking about the Ford Foundation here! I agree with all of you who are pointing out the sourcing problems in the article and the improper overuse of irrelevant references, but that's the messenger, not the message. Let's not rush to judgement here. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't addressing GNG. I was addressing Daniella's claim above that "an article from The Buffalo News that provides additional national notability". First of all, the foundation doesn't have national notability, and second of all, an unviewable article about a cheese factory in the Buffalo News does not supply it. Softlavender (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this article is overly reffed (thirteen before the article is eight words long). Many of those refs do nothing to support the notability of the Foundation. You should actually pare back the refs and include only those that, per WP:GNG address "the topic directly and in detail" bearing in mind that significant coverage "is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Many of the refs you have supplied, if they mention the Foundation, do not address it in detail, and include only a passing reference to it, for example in an obituary. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. I appreciate the constructive comments. I can work on thinning out some of the refs. However, I do believe that I've established notability by using reliable sources, including The Buffalo News and some other reliable sources, including the book that I added yesterday. That establishes at least the minimum required notability in my understanding. So, the foundation doesn't have a website - its not the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but it is one that has had a considerable impact. As for the ref that includes info about the foundation in association with the cheese cooperative, it is relevant because the foundation provided a loan to it to keep it afloat, otherwise none of the rest of what occurred would have happened. Work with me and locate more references to help support notability rather than cutting down my efforts at trying to improve and maintain the article. Thanks, again, for the insights and suggestions, Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article addresses the topic "directly and in detail" (as Harry mentioned above), then it's not a substantiation of notability. If all the article says about the foundation is that the foundation provided a loan to keep a cheese factory afloat, then that is not a substantiation of any kind of notability. (Heck a loan isn't even a gift, it's just loan, same as what banks do.) Softlavender (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you knew the Amish, they were probably too proud to accept a gift, so it was made as a loan. I wonder if it was ever repaid, or if it was written off. The article, obviously, doesn't address that. But, I appreciate your comments, Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Also, The Buffalo News, is very much a reliable source that is used to establish national (and regional) notability. You can buy it in many bookstores around the country, not just in Buffalo. Also, Buffalo is the second-largest city in New York State, next to New York City. Why should the Buffalo News get the diss just because its not something like the New York Times or Washington Post? Later, Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more information and three references, two of which are from reliable sources, including Buffalo Business First, a recognized newspaper of American City Business Journals throughout the country. These two references help establish increased notability. The other reference provides sourcing to support some existing information. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC) There are now 5 references from reliable sources included in the article that establish more than minimal notability required to maintain the article. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm still not seeing anything counting towards GNG in the footnotes here. Footnote 24 is a dead link and that would be good to take a look at. Will the closing administrator please be sure to userfy this to the content creator in the event of deletion so that information may be more easily merged? Thanks. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two books in which the foundation is described in detail out of California apply to GNG, as well as information about the foundation from The Buffalo News and Buffalo Business First. Minimum notability has been established per GNG. Also, #24 is a dead link, but I don't know how to adjust that to have it apply to the original link without changing it and removing the url; is there a way to link it to an archived original? Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - as per Harry the Dog. 1292simon (talk)
Keep or merge - per Solarra and Montanabw. I don't see too much of a problem with this article other than a bad case of citation overkill, probably driven by persistent requests for more and more sources. As of right now, I would say that the article meets the bare minimum for it to be kept under WP:GNG, but seemingly a merge of the content of this article to the Daniel Gernatt page might also be acceptable and closer to consensus. Flip^and Flopped ツ 20:36, 20 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Parker Pie Co.[edit]

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

Needs the publicity. Small business. "Yankee" magazine is notoriously indiscriminate about nominations. Having said that, it is not a bad place to have pizza. It is unique, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Student7 (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In order to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, there needs to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources present in the article fails on being significant coverage. The coverage I am available to find is local like this. Insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources offered in the article are basically routine coverage of opening a new location and some trivial mentions. Searching Google books, however, turned up non-trivial mentions in travel guides (1 and 2). These aren't wonderful source but I would accept them meeting our requirement for multiple reliable independent secondary sources per WP:GNG. Since we decide notability based on available sources, not merely what's been cited, I !vote to keep. Msnicki (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The citation used in the article simply do not meet the standards of WP:CORPDEPTH, being reviews, trivial mention or other similar articles. Further, travel guides do not confer notability because they are only directories of local attractions, a violation of WP:Not. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the guidelines disallows the use of travel guides to establish notability. We apply the same tests to travel guides as we do to any source, asking that it be reliable, independent and secondary. Travel guides may contain a certain amount of simple directory information, e.g., a list of shops with addresses and phone numbers and little else. But the sources I cited do more than that. They have not merely added the subject to a long list. They've provided the authors' independent thoughts on the subject. That makes them WP:SECONDARY and perfectly acceptable for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the travel guide entries presented are brief, and for me, don't reach the level of significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Whpq NQ talk 11:38, 14 July 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. Per WP:SOFTDELETE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Skryabin[edit]

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

Biography that has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (IMDB is not a reliable source). Orphan. Contested PROD. Claim of notability (nomination for an award) is not backed up by a reliable source. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article per WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. Sources found thus far consist of passing mentions (e.g. [10], [11]). The subject had a leading role in The Stoker (per [12]), but WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:41, 10 July 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 per discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Credit[edit]

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

Non-notable young-adult novel; fails WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like it got multiple reviews from the Horn Book Guide and one from the Junior Library Guild, as well as one from the School Library Journal. ([13]) The SLJ also lists it as a recommended read for Islam in the classroom. I'm just starting out with searching, but I am finding evidence that this is used in classrooms as well, but that doesn't surprise me- Clements work is usually a school read. I'll see what else I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took some digging, but I managed to find multiple reviews in various RS, mostly academic/teacher type of journals and magazines. Kind of impressive in that it managed to get a writeup in a magazine/journal issued by a rival publishing company. I also found where it's mentioned by various different schools and school-type books ([14], [15], [16]) that show that it's being used in classrooms. In all fairness (lest anyone start waving trouts around), this stuff wasn't exactly easy to find and it did take a bit of work to unearth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:13, 11 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brisa Carrillo[edit]

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

About 2,000 results, I don't see any notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musician-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines for actors. Generally they need two significant appearances in notable works. At best she may have one appearance in a work, although I don't understand the show enough to even say if her role is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Fails notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the other users that she is not notable enough. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Same editor created a Spanish article on the subject earlier in 2014, which was also deleted. (see es:Usuario discusión:Natssuper1988.) If any event, the English article has almost no content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:08, 15 July 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Mubahala[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As stated in the previous AfDs, there is already an article on Mubahala. A hadith is a saying of Muhammad, making it a primary religious source, and this article is essentially just a copy-paste job of a primary religious source.
The first AfD nomination had no commentary at all. The second had comments from one editor, though to be honest I feel it wasn't sufficient as the editor mistakenly though it was the 3rd nomination rather than the 2nd (and based their rationale for not deleting on that), and quoted Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for keeping the page which isn't much of a structured position, leading to another "no consensus."
For those who know a bit about Islamic religious texts, this issue is very clear: this quote from Muhammad is copy pasted here and this quote in particular doesn't have significant coverage even though the even the quote is about - Mubahala - does. It's not notable in any way. Renominating one last time per WP:RELIST. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 25 June 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm the only person so far other than the nominator to have opined on this. I'll flip my previous opinion and defer to the expertise of the nominator here. This has been through the wringer again and again; there has been no defense mounted, nor does sourcing seem to support a GNG outcome. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the topic is considered hadith or not seems to be a difference in the Sunni/Shia schism. Insofar as the nominator is openly Sunni, this seems to be COI rather than expertise. Andrew (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:Andrew Davidson, I am sorry but your statement is clearly false. Sunnis and Shias both agree that this is a hadith; the disagreement is only in regard to interpretation of its meaning.

Additionally, I am offended by your flagrant attack on my character and objectivity. You have no idea who I am nor have we edited together in the past. Not only do you have absolutely no basis for smearing my reputation as an unbiased editor but your assertion that a sunni editor writing on a topic relating to sectarianism must automatically be biased, icomes off as bigoted and shallow. If you won't at least delete such comments or apologize for them, please just refrain grom attacking other good editors that way and focus on the discussion at hand. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:Andrew Davidson, I am Shia and as User:MezzoMezzo told "Sunnis and Shias both agree that this is a hadith; the disagreement is only in regard to interpretation of its meaning." Please be polite and check his contributions to find you are wrong about him.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This seems to be a title dispute/fork, which should be resolved by merger, not deletion. Andrew (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As you can find in the lead of Mubahala it is a general term which can be used for different events, while Hadith of Mubahala refers to the specific event which has happened during the the messenger of God's life. Of course, that article has some problems based on WP:Verifiablity. I ask Mezzomezzo to help with improving it instead of deleting. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hadith of Mubahela are mentioned in authentic secondary sources. I already added some points from Tafsir al-Mizan by Tabatabaei. We'd better improve the article instead of deleting the article. Mhhossein (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs improvement with more reliable sources but the subject is notable. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:00, 18 July 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 Lady Jane (film). Discussion shows the article does not meet the notability guidelines, but a redirect to the only film where there is a significant role is sensible. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Saire[edit]

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

In trying to expand this two-sentence stub, it became apparent that this actor probably isn't notable enough for a Wiki article. I couldn't find anything in reliable sources except mentions in lists of credits. Moswento ^talky 14:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does have 14 acting credits on IMDB, several links from Wikipedia articles, and a significant part in one fairly well known film, Lady Jane (film). PatGallacher (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 14 acting credits doesn't really seem that many to me, and one significant role isn't a sufficient indication of notability (WP:NACTOR suggests "multiple" such roles might be). Moswento ^talky 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although he hasn't got that many credits, he did have a significant role in Lady Jane, which I think just about qualifies him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One significant role isn't a sufficient indication of notability per WP:NACTOR. One decent source might push him to borderline notability, but I haven't found that source yet. Moswento ^talky 07:53, 26 June 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NACTOR and WP:GNG, possibly redirect to Lady Jane (film). One or two roles in significant films doesn't do it, especially when they're not starring ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Clarityfiend. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. He's a bit part actor. Szzuk (talk) 16:41, 18 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Life of Illinois[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be notable. The impressive-looking list of references are almost all to other anti-abortion organisations (ie not independant), there are a couple of trivial mentions in local press. TheLongTone (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Independent sources - "Independent sources are not necessarily "neutral" in the sense of being even-handed. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and he or she may strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status, but if the author gains no personal benefit from these children learning how to read, then the publication is an independent source on the topic." So the fact that a source is from another anti-abortion organization does not mean that it is not independent. In fact, because Students for Life of Illinois is a stand-alone non-profit it appears that these other sources likely derive no personal benefit from publishing about another organization in their field and therefore can be considered independent. Also, I've seen no references in the documentation that suggests that local press should be considered trivial. Smartedits5 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page. I'm kind of new to creating pages here and I'm a bit confused as to why this is so quickly being considered for deletion. I did a quick search of other non-profit organizations in Illinois and there are several that have either no references or only reference the organization's website. Some have been flagged for notability but have not been deleted. Others have not been flagged. It seems that the Students for Life of Illinois page should be treated the same way. It's a registered 501c3 and it has more references than many of the other pages in the category. Here are some examples of pages being treated differently: Air-One Emergency Response Coalition Center for American Archeology Here's one that's even a student organization with only a non-reference to the state of Illinois website: Belegarth Medieval Combat Society Here's one with the only reference as their facebook page: Eastern Illinois Foodbank and some more: Al Khamsa (organization) Alliance for Audited Media Classic Car Club of America His Wheels International -- I only went through the C's in the non-profits of Illinois category and those are the ones I found, so I'm sure there are many more.

It seems to me that we should treat this page the same as these others in the same category and instead of immediately deleting it, work to improve it together. Smartedits5 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other comparable articles exist is not an argument that stands up: in wikipedia jargon WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is certainly a plethora of references in this article, but there are really none that serve to establish the notability of the organisation: see WP:GNG.TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, it's fun to learn how all this works and participate in improving wikipedia. Thank you for the links, as I am still learning. Your first link WP:OTHERSTUFF seems to support my argument it says: "(This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." My argument seems to stand up in that I don't think this article should be quickly deleted and instead it should be improved. Smartedits5 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns about the article are wholly about the organisation's notability. Coverage by other linked anti-abortion organisations does not establish this.TheLongTone (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the words anti-abortion or similar should best come early in first sentence of article. Might help to have some indication of organisation size: Staff numbers, turnover, something like that. I'm not sure of convention here but perhaps a "see also" section pointing to a range of Pro/anti abortion topics may help Gregkaye (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I can do some research on that. A quick look at the website shows that they are involved on about 20 college campuses and it has been around for 8 years. Smartedits5 (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they have 4 staff members, 2 interns, an alumni association. Your point about a see also section could help give context, though I did try to include a lot of links to related articles Smartedits5 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPTheLongTone has not demonstrated this organization isn't notable, other than to say that he doesn't think it's notable. What criteria are you basing your assertion on? At what point is an organization notable? If you could list the definitive criteria that has been approved by the Wikipedia foundation, then we can use facts to determine if this particular organization meets the criteria for notability or not. You have stated that "The impressive-looking list of references are almost all to other anti-abortion organisations (ie not independent), there are a couple of trivial mentions in local press." How do you define trivial? What is your criteria for discounting the citations are trivial? The article includes at least three independent sources: The Daily Illini, which is the University of Illinois' Independent Student Newspaper, The Register-Mail (http://www.galesburg.com/), and Canada Free Press (http://canadafreepress.com/). In addition to these sources, other pro-life/anti-abortion website sources are provided. You would expect an article about baseball to cite other baseball or sports related sources like ESPN, Sports Illustrated, or baseball-reference.com, you would expect an article about art to have citations from other art related sources, so you would also naturally expect that citations from a anti-abortion / pro-life article to have references from anti-abortion / pro-life sources.

Thanks, hopefully we can get this issue sorted out.jptelthorst 20:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jptelthorst (talk • contribs)

The onus is not on me to prove it is not notable (and it is difficult to prove a negative). Rather the notability of the organisation needs to be established. I believe it is not notable becaause it does not seem to have been the subject of any significant media attention. Please read WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the organization has been established based on three independent citations that have been listed in this article, such as: The Daily Illini, which is the University of Illinois' Independent Student Newspaper, The Register-Mail (http://www.galesburg.com/), and Canada Free Press (http://canadafreepress.com/)

Again, I would ask you to cite the criteria for the establishment of notability and then explain how the article fails to meet that criteria. I have made an argument above on why I think the citations do establish notability, and you have not refuted my argument by explaining why the citations for the article fail to establish notability. Jptelthorst (talk

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite a long list of references, none of them denote notability. There is no significant coverage of this organization that I can find in news archives or academic journals. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that you're dismissing the links without looking at context. Under Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources it says "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." LifeNews and LifeSiteNews are considered industry news sources, for example. Just because they are in the same industry does not mean that what they report is not notable or reliable or independent. I think context is important as stated above and I think the context of most or all the sources supports reliability. So, we have independent and reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia:Notability says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition," Again, just because there are sources from other organizations within the same 'industry' doesn't mean the coverage is insignificant. Smartedits5 (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable. I added some Guidestar info and a quote from a Chicago Tribune article. --do ncr am 15:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under Wikipedia:General notability guideline it says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This organization has been featured in the Daily Illini, Daily Northwestern, Young America's Foundation as well as a couple documentaries, most recently 'The 40 Film'. Any claim that this organization has not been featured in the news is, quite simply, not true. Merely because this organization has not been featured in the Wall Street Journal or Forbes magazine does not make it irrelevant to the general public." JerryVacha (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently largest organization in the country of its type (organized on college campuses) in anti-abortion work. I think people on both sides of the issue would like to know of its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonh30303 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 July 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 deleted per G3 and G4. Mike V • Talk 18:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 9[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This appears to be an essay, and contains much unsourced speculation and personal opinion. Electric Wombat (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the worst Wiki article I have ever seen, since it is all personal opinion and has no sources. I was bold by blanking it and redirecting to Windows.Frmorrison (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was an understandable response, but see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 11#Windows 9, which deleted the previous such redirect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back in May there were not as many rumors as there are today about Windows 9. I can imagine some people trying to search for W9, so the redirect to Windows will show there is nothing to say about it. Frmorrison (talk) 21:01, 10 July 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 Procedural keep. This belongs at RfD, not here. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian current events[edit]

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

It is a time sensitive page that currently redirects to 2010. Even if it did link to 2014, the year is a poor proxy for current events as there are things like the Charbonneau Commission that have been ongoing for years. - Sweet Nightmares 15:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Years ago, this used to be maintained much like the "In the news" section of the Wikipedia main page, and subsequently for awhile redirected to a (now dormant) current events section of the Canada Portal, before it got switched to the (then) current 2010 in Canada. I don't see much point in deleting a redirect. If a user enters "Canadian current events", may as well send them somewhere relevant. If we don't (for obvious reasons) want to redirect to 2014 in Canada, then redirect to List of years in Canada or something. But it's kind of pointless to delete it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The List of years in Canada article would be more appropriate than the current redirection, although it isn't organized in a way that makes it easy to find the most recent page. If the list page had a section heading such as "Current decade", the page under discussion could redirect to the section, and the section heading would only have to be moved every ten years when the next decade began. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Anne. I created a "current decade" subheading at List of years in Canada, enabling such a redirect from here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Hardie[edit]

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

Contested prod, not sufficiently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that neither of the posts this person held are inherently notable. Lord Lieutenant is an honorary post with little real power. We may need to discuss what level of officer is inherently notable, but I suggest that it should not be as low as Brigadier. This person does not appear to have any significant claim to notability on top of holding these two posts. PatGallacher (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:SOLDIER we keep articles on all general officers or equivalent (which includes brigadiers). Although it is not an official guideline, it is accepted by most editors who regularly work on military articles. The Lord-Lieutenant is the representative of the Queen in the county. That is also generally considered to be a notable post and has its own article. I should point out in addition that Hardie has an entry in Who's Who and, although the article did not mention it when nominated for deletion, is a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, a level of honour which has generally been held to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1 (e.g. this, this, this - the CVO is an equivalent grade to the CBE in a more senior order). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep because of the CVO, verified by Debretts. I would not say that merely being a brigadier in the reserves grants Wikipedia notability. It seems to fail WP:SOLDIER as brigadier is not always considered by these armies to be a general officer rank. --Bejnar (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, brigadier is not a general officer rank. However, it is considered by NATO to be entirely equal to the rank of brigadier general, which is a general officer rank, and brigadiers wear one star when it is considered necessary to indicate their status in an international context. It also replaced the British rank of brigadier-general, which was a general officer rank. Are we really saying that American brigadier generals are notable, but British brigadiers, holding an equivalent rank with equivalent responsibilities, are not just because Britain has chosen not to give them general officer status? That would be ludicrous and biased. Also, it has been held in previous afds that being a reserve general instead of a regular general makes no difference as far as WP:SOLDIER is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the minimum requirement for WP:SOLDIER as a brigadier, and the CVO, Lord Lieutenant and Who's Who entries get him over the line quite easily IMO. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sense that the discussion is moving in favour of keep, but we may need to look into which if any of his posts are inherently notable. Lord Lieutenant may have its own article, but his may not make every holder inherently notable, what about Alderman or Sergeant? Is anyone with an entry in Who's Who inherently notable? PatGallacher (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as positions go, since notability is not inherited, there are no positions that automatically grant notability. While some differ, there are many Wikipedians who have concluded that there is no inherent notability. See, for example, the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#Notability plants and animals. --Bejnar (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's nonsense. That's not what is meant by "notability is not inherited", some posts are inherently notable, see WP:BIO. The argument being put forward here is that all military officers from Brigadier upwards are inherently notable, maybe so, but are e.g. Lords Lieutenant inherently notable as well? Note that the consensus is that e.g. ambassadors are not inherently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the latter seems to be changing, especially for ambassadors from Britain and other major countries. Lords-Lieutenant (and ambassadors) tend to receive honours that satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. Does that not tend to suggest that the post may be senior enough for notability? We consider that all politicians elected to a national or sub-national legislature and all sportsmen who have appeared in a single high-level international or professional match are notable (many of them are very obscure). Is it too much of a stretch to consider all Lords-Lieutenant to be notable? Aldermen do not usually have entries in Who's Who. Sergeants certainly don't. An entry in Who's Who does not, in any case, indicate automatic notability, but it's a good start. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brigadier, Lord-Lieutenant add up to enough to make notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:22, 16 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Khrushchev (journalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete, as person fails the general notability guidelines. Most of the article is about his father and grandfather. Notability is not inherited. Unfortunately, the one citation and all of the external links were raw urls and are now dead links. Nonetheless, coverage seems to be lacking. The Russian Wikipedia article is a bit longer, but it has only a single citation to a short biography at RIA Novosti. He was not a columnist, he worked in the newspaper's morgue (archive and background information division) and was in charge of the "Calendar" column that listed upcoming events. A non-notable man in a non-notable position at a notable newspaper, the Moscow News, with a well-known relative. Note, when searching for him, that there are a lot of false drops even when using "journalist" as a filter, hits such as "Interview with Nikita Khrushchev's journalist son-in-law" (his uncle). --Bejnar (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is much more about his relatives than about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is not notable and there are no sources to check since the links are dead.Frmorrison (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

CommentAt least two good sources, based on the same AP report but with different info:
- http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2007/02/23/nikita_khrushchev_47_was_grandson_of_soviet_leader/?camp=pm
- http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1999/For-Young-Nikita-Cold-War-Rages/id-fab7a4429e5ad8c6faa52f2182e581d9 Anarchangel (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one is his obit (2007) and the other is from 1999, but neither is really about him, so much as his relatives. --Bejnar (talk) 06:03, 15 July 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. A2 of ms:wiki Jac16888 ^Talk 18:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherie Merlis[edit]

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

The whole article is written in some foreign language. References given at end are wrong Sulaimandaud (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: page has been deleted previously as a test page. Some parts like filmography, seem to be copied from Angelina Jolie.220 of ^Borg 15:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreferenced BLP. I had BLP Prod tagged this because I didn't see an AFD template, but you seem to have reverted your addition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not rising to the creative status required, fails WP:ENTERTAINER & WP:CREATIVE, and lacking coverage, fails WP:GNG. This Malaysian actress does not have an article on the Bahasa Melayu Wikipedia, but she is mentioned there in the cast of a couple of movies, Janin (film) and Leftenan Adnan (film). The awards in the infobox are spurious, as mentioned above. Sherie Merlis at IMDb lists the same two movies that the Bahasa Melayu Wikipedia listed her under. --Bejnar (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The reasons given for the deletion nomination weren't proper grounds for it. Articles written in foreign languages, unless delete-worthy for another reason, are treated as described at WP:Pages needing translation into English. Basically, there's a two-week grace period to see if anyone translates them; if not, they get PRODded. As for references being in the wrong place, we don't delete articles for being formatted incorrectly. We repair them or tag them for others to repair.
Regarding the Angelina Jolie material, I'm supposing that the creator took Angelina Jolie as a template and hasn't finished adapting it yet. It would have been better done in a draft space, but it would have been premature to interfere this soon. Even if the filmography was still there after a few hours, the proper course of action would have been to delete that content, not the page, since the rest of the material is about the article's subject.
Unlike a regular PROD tag, a BLPPROD tag can and should be replaced if someone removes it without supplying an appropriate reference.
I'll do my own notability check since notability is a concern in any case, I just haven't done it yet.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Lindén[edit]

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

Not notable person, obvious autobiography, who has been spamming several 'notable person' pages with link to her own page Jdtclean (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Artist. I found this article about an exhibition she was part of in Finland, but it seems to be at a local level; otherwise she seems to be working as an ordinary photographer and also (previously) information consultant in a missionary organization. Iselilja (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 16 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Harmon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. His boss (Robert Wagstaff) has no article, nor does Orabrush. He was one of the people who helped to start Endorse Liberty (and that link redirects to Ron Paul), but so what? Lots of people were involved. – S. Rich (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note – see the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Oskoui. – S. Rich (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantive claim to notability. Marketing directors are almost never notable, nor are people who were part of the founding of Super PACs, especially non-notable ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable. Tiller54 (talk) 17:18, 12 July 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. And I will salt it as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Integrator[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely unremarkable/un-notable organisation. Doesn't even make any claim to notability. Has been speedied a number of times but people keep recreating it. Recent speedy undone on request. Bringing it here now. AlanS (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Promotional, most of the results seems to have been listed by the employees of this organization. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

That's one of the reasons I've nominated it for speedy in the past and it's gotten speedied for that reason. That and being completely unremarkable. Keeps on coming back though. AlanS (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not cite any source apart from the company's own website; in my view, this alone is enough for deletion under WP:GNG. I do note that an earlier version of the article had a number of citations, but most of those were to the company website or to press releases, and the rest were to other company's websites that merely identified Bell Integrator as a "partner" (i.e., supplier) to the other company, without any other information about the business. None of these provide the kind of "significant coverage" required by the guideline. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, open to salting: no evidence of notability. Cannot find support in English language RS and the Russian Google hits look like press releases (but I don't know that because I don't know Russian). BethNaught (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article reads like a press release, has been deleted before, and is not substantiated by reliable sources. Andrew³²⁷ 15:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt as no evidence of any notability, Plus it's been recreated 3 times [17] - Enough is enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please slow down. Not currently citing sources is not proof it isn't notable. Not finding any sources is proof. Rejecting Russian sources one cannot read because of what they look like is not all that rational, since we do accept sources in any language. A company of this size in this field might possibly have decent sources. Earlier version were promotional; this is not. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when an article says a company is based in California, I'd expect to find at least some mention of it in the proprietary business databases I've searched or at very least the official California business database. Clearly, something isn't right, and I'm not comfortable with this article being on Wikipedia. I'd support userfying it pending more sources, and I don't see an immediate need to salt it, but the article has to be removed from article space ASAP. Andrew³²⁷ 07:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author, who I assume is acting in good faith, has tried to create this article three times now. If there were reliable sources to be found, they have had plenty of opportunity to find them (and, if the article is deleted and they subsequently find reliable sources, they will be free to recreate it). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that even if the result of this nomination is a delete that they will attempt to create the page again, regardless of any new reliable sources or not. AlanS (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if they do have sufficient sources and write in NPOV fashion, it will be accepted, no matter how many tries it may take, tho if it is salted, they will need to go to deletion review to ask. 17:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Promotional or not, it is based on the style of writing. Exactly one can write a non-notable subject in non-promotional way. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It reads like a prospectus to me. Which might not be a flashing clip on your TV, but all the same is still an inducement to buy shares in the company or trade with the company. The only thing this article offers in the way of notability is the companies it trades with. Trading with, or having partners that are, notable companies does not make you notable! AlanS (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any article on any organization or company or performer or writer or place or politician, or cause that does anything good will to some extent be promotional, ad providing the information will have the effect of encouraging people to participate, donate, purchase, view , read , visit , or vote, or sympathize This isn ot what we mean by a promotional article, or we could write about nothing. 'As a ccnsequence, we pay no attention to intent, which we cannot always judge. We pay attention to the style and the facts that are presented. Facts that could only be directed at a prospective client etc ,are promotional; facts that provide information relevant to the general public who may have heard of the subject are not (the classic example for a company is detailed pricing information; for a school, it is details of the application procedure) The selective presentation of positive facts is promotional; the use of biased language is promotional; the use of adjective of praise is promotional. The presentation of basic plain facts is not: it's NPOV writing. What the reader makes of the NPOV presentation of the material is up to the reader. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plain promo The Banner talk 16:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note user Bellintegrator has previously been blocked indefinitely for being a spam account. AlanS (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:24, 13 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis' Grave[edit]

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

Orphaned article, not sure it meets WP:MOVIE IMO Gbawden (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The film exists and can be seen, and apparently its best feature is how very bad it is. Unfortunately, it has not received coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish that there were sources out there for this film, but unfortunately they just don't exist. It'd have been nice to keep this purely on its schlock factor, but we need those sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 14 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Yorentz[edit]

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

not yet notable; only 1 role in non-student company. Prodwas declined. DGG ( talk ) 11:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clear cut failure of WP:NMUSIC. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm at NYPL, andf have checked for additional information in their databases, and not found any. BTW, the contributor removed the afd tag from the article. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I too have been unable to find sources that would help support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 13 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fannaa[edit]

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

It is bit hard to understand what the article is about. It seams to be about a TV series, but it is hard to find reliable sources as there is also movie titled "Fanaa (film)". Vanjagenije (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not really even an article—just an incomplete infobox. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No internet searches turn up anything for this series(?). — Wylie pedia 16:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - The article was only created on July 10. It's in obvious rough shape, but this is a new editor who clearly hasn't mastered Wiki syntax. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True, but, per its edit history, the creator only spent ten minutes on it and has yet to add more or try to fix it. Also, the creator's name is Superstarsam, and the star of the project, according to the broken infobox is "$AM". — Wylie pedia 19:45, 11 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur snooker longest frame[edit]

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

This looks like a case of original research. there are no sources to prove that this frame was indeed the longest. There are also no sources to prove that this concept is notable enough. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Googling for "Steve Riva" "Jimmy Loughman" (with quotes) brings up only this article and a Google Sites page. — Gwalla | Talk 18:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable anecdote with an inaccurate title. Wikipedia is not your personal blog. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced personal anecdote. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Theme/Cantina Band[edit]

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

No way does this deserve a standalone article. Biggest-selling instrumental single in the history of recorded music or not, this is an unnecessary fork as far as I'm concerned. Laun chba ller 10:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song was a number-one single on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. It therefore meets the first factor in WP:NSONG.--Bensin (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I don't fully understand the nominators argument ... it's common practice on wikipedia to have forks for specific singles if that is what they are referring to? Anyway, this qualifies, being No 1 on Billboard Hot 100 and it also charted at No 7 in the United Kingdom. JTdale ^Talk 13:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that we don't need a standalone article when there's almost as much information on Star Wars Theme then there is here. Per WP:NSONG, "notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article".--Laun chba ller 20:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point and I agree with the general principle that articles should be about songs, not singles, but this song is a medley of songs from Star Wars so it does not easily merge into any single one of the songs it is made up from. (Even so, a proposal for merger would perhaps have been more suitable than a delete.) --Bensin (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Halo 2 player (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Halo 3 gamer (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Halo reach player (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've blocked the above three as obvious sockpuppets. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 14:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Delete a #1 Billboard single? Don't be silly. That's as notable as a pop song can possibly get aside from arguably winning a Grammy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are many references that prove it is notable.Frmorrison (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A chart is just a list/a ranking and charting in and of itself is not a notable feat; it is the coverage of that feat that makes it notable (which is why most #1 songs are going to have much more coverage than a song peaking at #75 and why there's an article on this medley and not Mecos's "Pop Goes the Movies", a top 40 hit from 1982). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The preceding argument overreaches; it denies the the NSONG provisions. Now, while the provisions say specifically they "may" indicate that notability can be found, WP:DEL also keeps articles for which sources can be found. Not necessarily exist in the article. So this fits neatly in with NSONG assuring that top ranking songs may be expected to get that coverage. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question if this was a Billboard #1 song, where is the coverage? I should add that charts/single releases alone do NOT make songs notable. If this can't be expanded beyond a stub, it doesn't warrant its own article. Same for if there is no significant coverage from reliable third-party references independent of its album. Unless this can be expanded with coverage outside of album reviews, I say redirect to Star Wars and Other Galactic Funk. It's definitely a plausible search term, but I so far don't see how it warrants a separate article at the moment. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Link rot? Chart position does indeed confer a special status on songs, as shown in my argument above. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an entry on the song in this book (p. 474), it's discussed (among other songs) in the Billboard article "Film Themes Spur Rash of Singles Hits", and there's further info on it here and here, for starters. These, along with going platinum and going to number one, shows that enough material exists to meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow talk 21:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With Gongshow's evidence of notability, I now vote keep. Article still needs expansion, though. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh upadhyay[edit]

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

No sources to verify claims implying notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources exist, not notable at all, this should have been a speedy delete. Goblin Face (talk) 19:04, 12 July 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. As per the previous AFD, the current version contains even less information than the first one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobogenie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was recreated with similar content to what was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobogenie. Ollieinc (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ollieinc (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ollieinc (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion G4, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.Dialectric (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T2 (novel series)[edit]

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

Non-notable novels. No significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, failing WP:N and WP:GNG. References recently added show a few user reviews from goodreads.com as well as the number of libraries that hold the books, not nearly enough coverage to merit a Wikipedia page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could do a (maybe selective) merge to the author S. M. Stirling, who is notable due to other works. Also a possibility to (selectively) merge to Terminator (franchise) or Terminator 2: Judgment Day. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For what it's worth, I found a few reviews: Coventry Evening Telegraph (England) (highbeam), Sunday Mercury (Birmingham, England) (highbeam), Publisher's Weekly, and SF Crow's Nest. The HighBeam links are subscription-only, and I can't read them. The PW review might not establish notability, as they review everything. And I'm not quite sure that SF Crowsnest is a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the two reviews linked above, I think the reviews makes it notable enough.Frmorrison (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over the reviews you posted. While Publishers Weekly may meet notability standards, SF Crowsnest certainly does not. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:34, 14 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:31, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I got access to Highbeam, so I can comment on the subscription-only sources now. One is pretty brief and amounts to just a few short paragraphs. The other is rather lengthy and detailed. However, both sources are local newspapers. I'd feel better about the notability if there were more coverage than PW and local newspapers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel comfortable with PW and local newspapers as references and that there are over a thousand T2 series of books in public libraries. Frmorrison (talk) 20:13, 17 July 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 Soft delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wiand[edit]

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

This person seems to be of local interest only. I see no coverage of this person outside of Leeds. I also don't see any evidence that his work as a spy was notable or unusual in any way. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable here, low level spy and business man.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 1 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:31, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:00, 10 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Spider-Men[edit]

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

It seams to me that this article is redundant to List of Spider-Man supporting characters. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, in universe, and non notable. Any info can either be incorporated into the article on the show or a list of alternate spider-men. Killer Moff (talk) 15:07, 27 June 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:23, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no need for such a small list of characters when there is already a character list, and it provides no sources to assert that it needs any more coverage than already present on the list. TTN (talk) 17:10, 12 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Visual Dictionary of Star Wars, Episode I[edit]

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

Non-notable book; fails WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is a non-notable book. Mention of the book should be in the Episode I article though.Frmorrison (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 25 June 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:23, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable book. Wefihe (talk) 11:19, 10 July 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 soft delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Hart[edit]

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

Hedge fund manager. Although there are refs his fund, ReachCapital Management, does not appear particularly noteworthy. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 25 June 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:21, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 10 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vacancy led recruitment[edit]

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

Advertsing. Expert 2 Care promoting Expert 2 Care. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidate led recruitment of the same company The Banner talk 21:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a not-very-clever effort to disguise spam as content. bd2412 T 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:18, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks likes spammy "content marketing" from Expert2Care. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a vehicle for ref spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:HOWTO and WP:COAT. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I haven't as part of the close but feel free to redirect it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kublai Khan (band)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a band with no substantive claim of notability that passes WP:NMUSIC. Note that "defunct band which had a member who went on to attain notability with a different band later on" is not one of the NMUSIC criteria — and even if it were, it still wouldn't entitle a band to keep an unsourced article, as it's not the assertion of passing NMUSIC that gets a band past NMUSIC, but the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to verify the assertion. As well, it warrants mention that the article was recently hijacked to write about a different band, which also didn't make any substantive claim of passing NMUSIC as written. Neither band is entitled to keep an unsourced article on Wikipedia, so this needs to be deleted if the sourcing can't be beefed up. Redirection to Greg Handevidt might also be acceptable, but his article is poorly sourced enough — answers.com is most certainly not a reliable source — to be dancing on the edge of deletability too. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Rediredt to Greg Handevidt. There is at least an Allmusic bio that can be used to source some of this. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except I'm not sure Greg Handevidt is himself notable, except possibly by playing in 2 notable bands, which he didn't if Kublai Khan isn't notable. And he was only in Megadeth briefly and isn't described in detail in that article so merging there may be disproportionate. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:02, 3 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:16, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - I agree with Colapeninsula that Greg Handevidt is pretty much a footnote in the history of Megadeth. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Total lack of notability--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi Matsumoto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated after being deleted in 2012 and not being restored after a deletion review, this article still lacks two sources, nor was I able to find two sources, which would evidence notability under WP:GNG. Additional sources welcome. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case where the person fails per WP:ENTERTAINER as there is no major roles done, also per WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 just fine. Was one of the main cast members in Penguin no Mondai[18] which has over 250 episodes made. They are listed as being in all the television shows. [19] shows all major roles in bold, so they've done others as well. Dream Focus 11:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dream those are both from the encyclopedia portion of ANN with has proved to be user edited and unreliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no doubting this person was in a notable show that had over 250 episodes, they a main cast member in it. He was also a main character in Hikarian, which had over two hundred episodes. Sounds like some major roles to me. Dream Focus 03:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While ANN's encyclopedia is not a reliable source, it can be used to verify (though not source) if a voice actor has had several major roles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm very much aware that I originally !voted delete in the original AfD, but since then I learned that she voiced Link in a few games. Yes, Link is well-known for not exactly being talkative, but still, a major character such as Link, isn't that enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, voicing a character that historically rarely, if ever speaks doesn't seem like a very good justification for making a special case of ignoring the root of the GNG. Sources are still paramount, and none of the roles listed seem like candidates for a strong likelihood of reliable sources and wide coverage. The article, after two AFD's still only has two sources and one of them can't be used to ascertain notability.SephyTheThird (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability of voice actors is not determined by how many series they have been in, how big those series are or how famous those series are. It's determined by the same thing as every other article - wide coverage in third party reliable sources, none of which are demonstrated by this article to a reasonable degree. The Entertainer sub section is being used as an catch all excuse for articles that don't demonstrate notability without dealing with these core issues and it needs to stop. It's irrelevant how many episodes a show is if the voice provider only has a few lines here and there. If the provision of voices for individual roles is significant than it will be covered in sources suitable. Clearly, in this case it isn't and it should be subject to the same rules as any other page. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of any reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria have been satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 07:08, 1 July 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:20, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 10 July 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 Warriors (novel series). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Woods (Warriors)[edit]

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

split to new line --slakr^\ talk / 01:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What has this AfD to do with The United States of America? User:Gene93k, can you please explain? -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher, Tokyopop, is American. I sorted under country of origin. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warriors (novel series). This will allow the history to remain intact so I have the time to merge their contents in. Bramble claw x 13:26, 25 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:45, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I tried to find sourcing, but couldn't really find anything. The only true RS I found was a SLJ blog post and this one source isn't enough to show notability. (On a side note, the SLJ does post a few blogs, but they are fairly discerning about who and what they allow on their website and this is one of only 10 blogs they post on their website. The blog is edited and verified by SLJ editors and is one of the rare exceptions to the blog rule.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 Thank you so much for that note, I think it will come in handy for most of my work on Warriors articles. Bramble claw x 13:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem- I've used them before and gotten some "but they're a blog" comments, but they're edited and looked over to the point that they're not really blogs as much as they're articles for the SLJ. Some of the writers may post them on other sites, but they're written for the SLJ first and foremost. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shafi (actor)[edit]

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

No sourcing; no notability established. Article appears to have been created by the subject themselves in violation of WP:COI. McDoob AU93 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AUTOBIO and therefore COI. Non-notable. Created for self promotion. A side note, the article creator's userpage,User:Actorshafi, seems to also redirect to this article. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article seems to give assertions to the subject passing WP:ENT #1 and there seem to be sources available.[20] [21] [22]. Short COI articles can be cleaned up. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:15, 1 July 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:41, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As this has already been relisted twice with no additional input, and there are genuine disputes on what is and isn't substantial in reference to reviews, I can't see a consensus here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas (Hillsong album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Track listing only at AllMusic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or else Move to Merge with It's Christmas (Hillsong album) or Celebrating Christmas. Cross Rhythms reviewed the original album back in 2001, but a fairly quick g-hits search could not bring anything else up on that album alone. However, this album was apparently re-released along with Celebrating Christmas as a dual-album combo entitled It's Christmas, as discussed by BREATHEcast. The BREATHEcast article does contain a substantial review of Christmas, though, so that and the Cross Rhythms review should be enough for the album to have it's own standalone article. So, it can stay, or get merged into a yet-to-be created It's Christmas article.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two or more reviews, enough for a stand-alone article. Thanks to 3family6 for research.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see Cross Rhythms. AllMusic is a track listing and BREATHEcast isn't a substantial review. Where do you see two or more reviews? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I count BREATHEcast, the same as 3family6 above who says it "does contain a substantial review of Christmas, though". I agree.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except he changed his opinion based on the lack of sources and your misunderstanding continues to determine that every Hillsong album should be kept regardless of the number of or quality of sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, I did not change my Keep vote, or my Merge vote. I deleted my "Move" vote as an alternative to merging (I'm not sure what I meant by "move"), as well as eliminating Celebrating Christmas as a possible target. I think at this juncture a merger into It's Christmas, which I hope to create tomorrow, is the best option.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album with no evidence of notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial coverage, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NALBUMS. --Bejnar (talk) 19:51, 2 July 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:03, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Noise (Hillsong album)[edit]

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

Other than the AllMusic reference nothing supports the notability of the album. See WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of independent significant coverage. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient notability to be reviewed by reliable sources. Thanks to 3family6 for additional refs.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't people do a g-hits search? I brought up two different reviews for this: Christian Post and AllMusic. I agree with Shaidar cuebiyar that many (not all) of these PRODs were premature.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the articles have already been deleted. The de-proding was premature on at least half of them. I agree that some were too early though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 3 July 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:03, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 10 July 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 Hillsong Music Australia. Opinions are all over the map, but a delete and redirect seems to be the best solution in the middle of consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jump to the Jam[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of independent significant coverage. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ I was able to find a review of the album, there might be more out there.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keep should only happen with three or more (multiple) sources. This presently only has one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Multiple I'd say is more than one. Agreed that it needs more than one significant mention. Hence my hesitancy to give it a full "keep" vote. But I'm not convinced that there is nothing else written about this album. I haven't done a site search of all the sources on WP:CCM/S, and there could be offline references.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Traditionally "multiple" means three or more in AfDs I've been a part of. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I don't always go by tradition, on or off-Wiki.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Good luck finding an online source for a review or any mention of notoriety for an album released 20 years ago during the infancy of the Internet (particularly for an Australian Christian release). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.55.67 (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — 58.6.55.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

They are correct though. There won't be much online about this album, while there might be much more in print. But in that case, someone with access to print mentions can recreate the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:34, 30 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:02, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to Hillsong Music Australia. Like most of the Hillsong Music articles that were created, this one fails both WP:GNG and NALBUM. --Bejnar (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelmed[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. AllMusic is just a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ The article cites a review by Cross Rhythms, and so certainly should not have been PRODed. I can't find anything on a g-hits search, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything else out there.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ now has 3 reviews.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How are the two added reviews actual reviews and not just advertising from the vendor?--¿3family6 _contribs 02:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. They're not RSes and they're not professional reviews. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I accede to 3family6's greater familiarity with CCM sources. I didn't see too many Australian sources at wp:ccm/s and so I searched for .au sites only. I thought that since Cross Rhythms was selling the same product, such reviews were acceptable here. I will continue to look for other sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should recommend some Australian sources at the CCM/S talk page. The difference between the Cross Rhythms review and the two others you posted is that Cross Rhythms reviews albums independent of the store. CBN.com does the same thing, and so do other publishers too. If you could demonstrate that the two sources you added did not originate as advertising and are instead quotes of a professional review, then they can qualify as reliable sources.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm voting weak keep and not full keep as it seems this album had some pretty good coverage. Although some of the sources might be more on the advertising side of things, the album has a solid review from Cross Rhythms as well as an AllMusic mention. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are single-handedly changing the definition of words. We have three track listing "references" and a short review. How is that "pretty good coverage"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I'm voting for a Weak Keep and not a full Keep. I'm trying to be as lenient as I can when it comes to coverage. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:48, 30 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 00:54, 3 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 10 July 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. No reason for deletion was given. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maharana Pratap Engineering College[edit]

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

naveenpf (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - The nominator has not stated any reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maharana Pratap Engineering College is a very important part of Educational Institutions of India, Uttar Pradesh. References have been given to various important website for the content entered. - Gaurav.yadav1234 (talk) 10:52, 12 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Canario[edit]

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

Unsupported by references (tagged as dead links for 18 months), single event of news (arrested for civil disobedience), most of article is about other topics, fails WP:GNG for a biography. – S. Rich (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A low level activist who gets at best passing mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 11 July 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. This probably will pass criteria eventually, but I just can't see a consensus for keeping it today. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Perrineau[edit]

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

per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. She has only one notable film role, which is currently shooting and in other film she has just been added to the cast. Which does not make her notable. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly an example of someone who is not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "She is best known for her upcoming starring role..." --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is "best known for" something that virtually no one knows anything about? Wow, quite the trick. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am in favor of keeping a page for the upcoming actress. The pivotal role Aurora will play in the Jem and the Holograms movie will satisfy WP:ENT. Silver Buizel (talk)

You are the creator of the article, right? So you have the crystal ball. Tell me what will happen: Will I be pretty, will I be rich? Will this article be deleted? How can you know beforehand who will be notable in the future? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That he feels that the role will bring more coverage is fine, but he should have stuck with existing film roles and existing coverage. There is no need to belittle him. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:ENT and WP:GNG just giving us a pass of WP:BIO. A predictive that WP:ENT will be satisfied in the future is not a proper rationale for a keep. However, arguing that it is already met is a valid rationale: Career beginning with a named role in one episode of Pretty Little Liars, and moving to a named role in Air Collision, a named role in A House is Not a Home, and a named role in Jem and the Holograms (a film which has been heard of), gives us the "significant roles in multiple notable..." as indicated by WP:ENT. Add this growing career to coverage and photos of this youngster in such as Hollywood Reporter, Madame Noire, Clutch, Indiewire, Black Girl Nerd, Just Jared, Deadline, Up and Comers, The Rooot, and Netjoven (Spanish), and a mention in People, Racked, Metro, and Entertainment Weekly, gives us WP:GNG. A suitable alternative to a flat-out deletion might have been to suggest this sourcable information could have found a home within the articles on her parents Harold Perrineau and Brittany Perrineau, but it increases a reader's understanding to have this article remain and grow further over time and through regular editing. The article author would be well advised to use the additional found sources to cite facts within the article, lest it be returned to AFD by someone who feels only the biggest of film stars can be written of here. Disclosure: User:Silver Buizel dropped me a neutral note inviting me here to offer my input. I did my WP:BEFORE before reaching my conclusions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Fails WP:GNG fails WP:ENT. --Bejnar (talk) 06:38, 20 July 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. Consensus is that the article does not currently meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navid Sabouri[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: WP:NFOOTY demands that he have played in a match in a fully professional league. Although he has not yet done so, having recently signed to a top flight Iranian professional league suggests he will do so in the near future. There is no point deleting this article as it will be eligible for recreation in the near future. BethNaught (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. BethNaught's rationale is not acceptable. It is pure WP:CRYSTAL, there is no evidence that this player will play any time soon from any reliable source, plenty of prospects are signed by top clubs only to never play. It is a fundamental tenet of WP that we only create articles when players are notable, not in anticipation of notability. So far this individual has not played a single second of first-team football at any level, let alone fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said weak keep. If it were me I would decline to press the delete button, but leave it to someone else. Also, forgive me for not knowing the ins and outs of a sport in which I have only superficial interest. BethNaught (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perspolis026 has for the third time now removed the ((afd)) template from the article. I have given an appropriate level 3 warning. BethNaught (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion has shown that the book does meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Autonomy: The Economic, Social & Technological Case for Renewable Energy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Energy Autonomy: The Economic, Social & Technological Case for Renewable Energy

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

Can't find any references that make me figure this is a book that meets WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable book. I assume that is the nom's reason. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indeed, I'm having a hard time finding references to make it meet notability. (Sorry; every once in a while, I somehow miss entering the reasoning in afd2.)) -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found three reviews from peer-reviewed journals and a mention in an issue of The Ecologist, which looks to be a book review as well. I'm also finding where this book is used as a source in various different texts and papers. ([23], [24], [25]) The original article was fairly rough, but there's enough on there now to asset enough notability for a keep. It needs more TLC, preferably from someone more aware of the topic material than I am, but I've done enough to clear up the most pressing issues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Totally agree with TG -- the book is clearly notable. Hermann Scheer was a well-known German, and there are many editions and book reviews in European languages, see [26]. There is also quite good coverage in English, see [27] [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. Johnfos (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79 and Johnfos. It seems that after edits by Tokyogirl79 the issue with WP:NBOOK has been resolved. Beagel (talk) 06:39, 12 July 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. Only been deleted once so no need for salt just yet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selleck Chemicals LLC[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a company. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 02:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Google, Questia, Highbeam) are turning up no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 and salt. This is unsourced unambiguous promotion. The page was previously deleted as such but then recreated. BethNaught (talk) 08:37, 10 July 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ark-La-Tex[edit]

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

Unreferenced, Original Research, and a term that doesn't come up in google seraches. WP:NEO may apply. Prod taken down with the explanation of GHits. ...William 01:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A nomination evidently based on a mistake of fact. I can't explain the nomination's reports of not coming up with Google hits, since clicking the "find sources" links above yields 484,000 Google hits, 1,140 current GNews hits, 13,300 GBooks hits, and 571 hits on GScholar. There's nothing NEO about this term: the Shreveport-Texarkana region has been known as the Ark-La-Tex for many decades. A cursory look at of the links shows the pervasive use of the term. I added a couple of basic references for the name to get this started. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Arxiloxos; common name for this tri-state area for sure. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ark-La-Tex is and has been a very common name for this region; sources exist supporting this claim, as indicated above. Indeed, the NBC affiliate in the region, KTAL, brands itself as such, indicating it is not a neologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a widely used name for the region, as illustrated by Ark-La-Tex Oilfield Expo, Ark-La-Tex Wireline Services, Ark-La-Tex Shredding, Ark-La-Tex Color Lab, Ark-La-Tex Challenge, and so on. - Dravecky (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google and Google Books both brought up many reliable sources for the article. The claim that a Google search brings up no sources is simply untrue. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep* since everyone who looks will find it. https://www.google.com/search?q=arklatex (cf. Texarkana) Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:00, 10 July 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 Castletownbere. Davewild (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoil an Chroí Ró Naofa[edit]

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

NN primary boys school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Castletownbere or County Cork. The Sacred Heart schools are notable ~~but this one in Cork doesn't seem to have any RS.~~ I've expanded the article and found WP:RS. It seems notable in Cork, and it is a Sacred Heart school. But it's not notable world-wide, if that is the requirement. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I would not object to a redirect, a merge of wholly uncited challenged text is not appropriate. --Epeefleche (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The school has a website and that can be used per WP:use of primary sources since adding it to the List of Schools article only needs the fact that it exists. It can also be verified by the Archdiocese of Cork and Ross which has the school listed on its website. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good stuff for the creation of appropriate material at the target article, if it is redirected.Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Castletownbere or County Cork per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Castletownbere per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:35, 13 July 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duel for Gold[edit]

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

Article has no independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMNOT. Mdtemp (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We do not judge a topic notability by an article lacking use of sources, but instead decide if sources are available, even if non-English. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see my general observations on film notability in Hong Kong and China at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Return of Wong Fei Hung discussion (minus the Andy Lau part at the end, which doesn't apply here). Philg88 ^♦talk 09:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

working title:(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)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two further Chinese sources added to establish notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A big issue is that its Chinese name is 火併 (which simply translates as "fights") and this common search term/word gives multiple false positives. As director Yuen Chor is a very prolific Hong Kong notable, and as this is one of his works, I can accept that this film must certainly have had hard-copy Chinese coverage back in pre-internet 1971... coverage which was not somehow archived 20 years later when limited internet became available in Hong Kong. As article content is verifiable, I believe that under WP:NTEMP it serves Wikipedia to allow it to remain and receive the editorial attention of those editors better able than I to find find and translate sources. Being difficult to address does not equate to deletion.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's work. Now it meets WP:NF#Other evidence of notability.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:56, 10 July 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KoodibooK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This orphaned article may not meet notability requirements. It was previously AfDed but received no comments. — Rod ^talk 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find signficant coverage about this to establish notability. There is some local Bath coverage in the Bath Chronicle like this article, but coverage in a local paper is insufficient. --Whpq (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Forrester Research link is paywalled and could be the most solid reference, but it isn't clear whether it is a reference about the sector or this firm, with the former most likely. Other than that, searches are just turning up local start-up coverage. No evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability found. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The preamble verbiage available without payment clearly indicates that the report is on the sector. But even if it were about Koodibook itself, I'm don't believe that it would count towards notability. Forrestor, and similar companies will write research reports on demand. If a Forrestor client asks for a report on something they haven't covered before, they will initiate a report on it if the client desires. I would rely on the Forrestor report for the purprose of verifiability, but I'm not for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew P. Witt[edit]

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

WP:PERPETRATOR should apply. Tagged for notability 11 months ago and virtually no improvement or expansion which makes this article suitable for WP has occurred. – S. Rich (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence of notability beyond a single event. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E....William 14:29, 12 July 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.