< 23 July	25 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 already deleted by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The End of Time by Randall Towe[edit]

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

Self-published book. Can't find reliable sources —teb728 t c 22:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 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. Ekabhishek^talk 02:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanngto Aika[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also film is non-notable by definition (or lack of). Scope creep 22:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Actually, and to be clear... WP:CRYSTALBALL is not "failed", as that policy specifically allows that a future event may be written of if properly sourced... and just a little research finds this film topic spoken of in numerous independent sources. All that needs be done is this stub be expanded per multiple available sources {IE: WP:GNG is met)... but it may fail WP:NFF. However, if it can be confirmed that filming has begun, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) would be met and this brand new article merited. That applicable policy indicates that at the very least, it can be spoken of in the article on its notable director, Satish Rajwade. Back in a while. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Sanngto Aika Satish Rajwade Parag Kulkarni

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Hi Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}, how are you keeping lad? Yip, thanks and they are fair points, but I still don't think it is notable, even though it's panning out to be a good film, looking at the script. Looking at the article for more than half an hour yesterday found that - Four of the sources are defunct, with the rest duplicating content, the film looks minor in nature (if only perceived), i.e. the this is the first film for director (having been actor/writer in others), the producer has only been on the go since 2010, Landmarc Films (I see has been going since 19th August 2011, with only 2 well known actors/actresses, all the rest unknowns. scope_creep talk 16:03 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope_creep... the guidelines for notability are different concepts than the policy requiring verifiability and the policy allowing inclusion somewhere of sourcable material. Looking beyond the article's perceived failings, the topic of this film IS verifiable, and may (or may not) be considered worth an article if filming is confirmed. My point was to clarify that it is incorrect of you to declare that a policy which allows sourcable content to be written of somewhere was somehow "failed" simply because a separate article might not (yet) be merited. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. A fine point of policy, which means my afd assertion is no longer a tautology (logic), meaning it's no longer valid, except for a very tiny policy, which may make it pass wp:afd. I would like to leave it in, as it stands, and let the WP community decide. But, if you genuinely believe it passes WP:GNG, then I'll take out the WP:AFD. scope_creep talk 23:57 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope_creep... To be fair, it might have been a valid nomination of the two-sentence stub you nominated under a claim that the film may not meet WP:NF or its subsection WP:NFF. A simple <s>~~strikethrough~~</s> of the statement's first two words about policy would be reasonable and not effect discussion. Such are the risks when nominating brand new articles on improvable topics (See WP:BEFORE). Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spelling (drop the extra 'n'):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Sangto Aika

Keep and allow continued work on this brand new article. The stub first nominated, is now far different. We have enough sources speaking toward the production and its ongoing filming to meet the criteria of WP:NFF (paragraph3).[1][2]. Policy and guideline are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:02, 26 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) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Family Guy DVDs[edit]

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

This does not meet WP:GNG. It may have several dozen sources but they are simply being used to support the fact that the individual discs exist, and not that the DVD releases as a whole are a notable topic of discussion. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of home media releases for televisions program is common. This would normally be contained within the the main article, but as this list is large and the main Family Guy article is approaching SIZE, it is completely reasonable to consider this a spinout of the main article to cover home media. (And I'm pretty confident that if really one wanted to question notability, the individual DVDs can be shown notable via such DVD release/review sites, but that's not a requirment for a spinout like this). --MASEM (t) 23:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well are there reviews for the individual releases? Because all I see on the articles like these are just listings of releases and being proven that they exist. Not that they are of note.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ryulong is just doing this because he does not want the List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases to exist and is not a valid reason to delete an article just to make his point as to why List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases should not exist and get his way. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable DVDs, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons already given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – easily notable. United States Man (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list has to be notable, not each DVD on the list. Given this is a very popular show, and the release on DVD was covered by independent sources, I would say a list is notable in the vein of The Simpsons shorts (a featured list) if a couple of sources like this are added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 25 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) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hannah Montana DVDs[edit]

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

This does not meet WP:GNG. It may have several dozen sources but they are simply being used to support the fact that the individual discs exist, and not that the DVD releases as a whole are a notable topic of discussion. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ryulong is just doing this because he does not want the List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases to exist and is not a valid reason to delete an article just to make his point as to why List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases should not exist and get his way. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable DVDs, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep home media releases of televised shows are typically documented but considering the size of this and the main article, splitting this off to a separate list is reasonable. (Completely separate issue - the nonfree cover images are a problem here, per NFLISTS. One cover may be okay, but not 4) --MASEM (t) 01:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are documented doesn't mean that it's a valid topic for Wikipedia. All we have is proof that these exist. I see no reviews for the DVDs as a product. Just release information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The statement of failing GNG is bogus. United States Man (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list has to be notable, not each DVD on the list. Given this is a very popular show, and the release on DVD was covered by independent sources, I would say a list is notable in the vein of The Simpsons shorts (a featured list) if a couple of sources like this are added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 25 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 00:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Gałczyński[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:31, 25 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. Fenix down (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. There doesn't seem to be much on his career but if someone can prove that he has played in a fully professional league, I'll change to Keep. IJA (talk) 10:28, 26 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. Overwhelmingly obvious Keep. As stated numerous times, the person clearly passes the criteria. In order for the article to be deleted as promotional, it would require an overwhelming re-write, which it clearly doesn't. Areas that you have an issue with you can either choose to clean up yourself, or take to it's talk page (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Fattman[edit]

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

Breach of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons Rockturtle (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ryan Fattman is a state legislator, thus passing WP:POLITICIAN. The references in the article support that. Can the nominator elaborate on how this breaches BLP? • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. State legislator satisfies POLITICIAN #1, and I don't see anything scurrilous in there that would trigger BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: I don't get it. This has a pass on WP:POLITICIAN, it's properly sourced. If there's anything in it that tweaks BLP, then perhaps the nom could point it out. That would, however, be a content issue which should be taken to the article's talk page, and AfD isn't the proper venue for it. (I admit suspicion, as ever, about a nomination by a SPA for whom filing this AfD is his sole Wikipedia activity.) Ravenswing 03:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looking at the nominator's three edits, I say Ravenswing may have hit it right on the head. United States Man (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject state legislator clearly satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Moreover, the footnoted independent, reliable sources already included in the article seem more than sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Any problems with "promotional" aspects of the article are WP:NPOV issues to be resolved by article editing, not article deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I submitted the article for deletion because I feel it is not written from a neutral stance. Yes the subject of the article fits the criteria for BLP but the political career section (specifically the policy issues subsection) looks like something straight from a personal website. If you look at another politician, such as Rob Portman, his atricle is written from a much more neutral stance. BPL are required to be written form a neutral stance NPOV. I considered submitting the article for speedy deletion because I felt it fits the criteria for promotion Template:Db-g11.Rockturtle (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck delete vote by nominator. Your nomination is your vote. Neutrality issues can be dealt with in the course of normal editing. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'll bite. You felt that there were parts of the article that are promotional? What prevented you from editing those out? Anything that isn't sourced to a reliable source is liable for removal. You could have done that, and WP:BEFORE enjoins you to try before filing an AfD. Ravenswing 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional tones can be fixed without necessarily having to resort to deletion — the problem you've identified doesn't pertain to the whole article, either, but merely one specific section within it. So by all means, flag it for ((NPOV-section)), but the reason you've identified doesn't make the entire article a candidate for outright deletion. To qualify for deletion as "promotional", an article has to be so horribly written from top to bottom that killing it off and restarting the whole thing from scratch would be easier than just rewriting the problematic parts for tone — we do not nuke and pave every single article that happens to have had a couple of value adjectives added to it, if it would take all of five seconds to just remove the value adjectives. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fattman clearly is notable. It's even more egregious, considering at one time there were states where all the Democrat state senators and virtually none of the Republicans had articles. That was odd. However clearly Fattman passes notability guidelines as they exist at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy if possible.) Members of a state legislature do qualify for articles under WP:NPOL, and any content problems can be flagged for repair through the normal editing process — the article as a whole is not so egregiously written as to require the WP:NUKEANDPAVE treatment, so there was no valid reason to jump straight to an AFD nomination as the first line of response. (And, for that matter, I absolutely share Ravenswing's suspicions about brand new users whose very first contribution to Wikipedia is to initiate or participate in an AFD nomination.) Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN, nomination does not advance a valid reason for deletion, lots of keep !votes – why hasn't this been closed already? BethNaught (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly, as a member of a state legislature. Nominator seems to have mistaken AfD for cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 29 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mohammad Pshtdar[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Examined Khorramabad (Notable citizens), he is not on it. Looked up google. Found notthing. In Solar calander, Iranian calendars, it is 1393. According to the article, Ali Muhammad Pshtdar is 54, but can't find nought. Nor anything to do with Iran nuclear talks, being a translator. scope_creep talk 21:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Mr. Pshtdar, associate professor Payam Noor University of Tehran and is the owner of dozens of articles and books.Iranmanesh53 (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)— Iranmanesh53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Google scholar does find some of his works under the name "Poshtdar" but not with enough citations to be worth much for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a prominent academic.آذر فرنبغ (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)— آذر فرنبغ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Plant[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer WP:NBOX or kickboxer WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His kickboxing does not meet WP:KICK and he has had only 2 professional boxing matches so far. The Golden Gloves and being an Olympic alternate are not sufficient to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:KICK and WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 19:12, 28 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) 14:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases[edit]

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

This list seems to fall foul of WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE. The sources are just links to Amazon listings internationally that show that the releases exist and are/were for sale, but not that this is particularly a notable article on its own to garner its separate coverage (or any coverage for that matter). —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just started the page today and this seems to me to be no good faith or anything. As there are other pages in existence that list home media releases and uses Amazon.com as a source (Eg. List of Hannah Montana DVDs and List of Family Guy DVDs) so I do not see any reason why this should not be allowed. It seems to me that Ryūlóng is acting like he owns Wikipedia as he just went and decided on himself that the page should be redirected reverted my edits and that to me is not WP:Good Faith and personally he should have brought this up on the talk page instead of disregarding the guidelines set up on Wikipedia and just nominating this for deletion. That is just plain rude and uncalled for. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add on: Also if he had looked at the talk page he would have seen that I asked for help to find sources that need them. If it needs other sources why can't he just go and post more sources other then the Amazon.com ones? There is no need to delete the page. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are unimportant points that do not address the issue at hand. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument here. And for someone who says that I'm not assuming good faith you do a lot of the same by saying I have some sort of WP:OWN claims. I've not disregarded any guidelines here by sending this to AFD. I do not think this article should exist. I am seeking the community's input on this matter to see if they agree or disagree. And I am not required to seek out sources as you requested. It is up to the people who think this page should be retained to provide reliable sources that show that the topic is notable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion moved to talk—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator Do you think this topic should not have an article or are you just concerned with the lack of reliable sources? Given how young this article is perhaps it can be given some time for improvement? Chillum 21:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that this topic should have an article because of the lack of reliable sources and the overabundance of simply showing that the DVDs et al exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR says If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.. Lists are subject to this to. If there are any reliable sources that cover the topic of listing "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Home Media releases" then the article should stand. Not just supporting individual elements of the list but supporting the topic itself. Chillum 21:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not violate WP:NOR Chillum, as it has more then just sources by Amazon.com if you look at the references you can see there is sources by The Hollywood Reporter, Tvshowsondvd.com, Amazon.com (which I agree is the main source and more could be found if the page was given a chance) and trove.nla.gov.au. that is four sources in total. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are sources that say that the DVDs exist in some form, and this is a general announcement about the (then) future releases. Something like that belongs on the article about the TV show rather than supporting a separate article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable releases, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Somewhat disruptive AfD; passes GNG. United States Man (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The nomination links to policy but does not make it clear what the actual concern is. The only thing I can gather for sure is that there is concern about sources. I agree there are problems but I do believe they can be solved. The subject is notable and surely has been commented on by numerous sources. If this is still not sourced better in a few months I may go the other way at the next AfD. Chillum 04:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly state my concern to be poor sourcing relying on the existence of the ability to buy the home media and a lack of notability for any list of DVD releases.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Why is it so hard to understand notability? Amazon retail links do not demonstrate notability, we need "significant coverage" in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list has to be notable, not each DVD on the list. Given this is a very popular show, and the release on DVD was covered by independent sources, I would say a list is notable in the vein of The Simpsons shorts (a featured list). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. There's nothing out there that says the entirety of the Power Rangers VHS or DVD releases is notable. And there was only one independent source that covered the release to DVD (I'm still not convinced TVShowsonDVD counts as a reliable source). This is a footnote on an article at best because I see no encyclopedic merit to having a list of every DVD of a whole TV series.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryulong: Please read WP:BEFORE, point D. It seems you have not done this as a quick search returned [3], [4], [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not significant coverage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Entire articles about the releases are not significant coverage? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not about Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (the first 3 seasons). They're about the entirety of all 20+ years of the Power Rangers franchise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The third link is to a different set. I'm going to ask this explicitly: Have you looked for sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The third link still is not just MMPR which is what this article is about. And why would I look for sources when all I'm going to get is "you can buy the DVDs here" as results? We need sources explicitly about the releases of the first 3 seasons in general and not the 20 other seasons that followed that were not "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers". ANd also your comparison to The Simpsons shorts is not valid. That's a list of episodes. This is a list of DVDs in 3 different regions sourced to being able to buy the DVDs in those particular regions rather than any sort of discussion about just the video releases for this small subset of a larger franchise. This article might have some use if it was beyond MMPR. As it stands, it's just a list of links to Amazon.com/.ca/.co.uk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you haven't looked for sources. Poor nomination. Here's sources for seasons only: [6], [7] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this constantly a thing? And I don't think the all inclusive nature of websites like DVD Talk or TV Shows on DVD should really count towards anything. They list everything like IMDB does and we don't count them as a source. And how does that MTV Geek thing even work as a review if they're discussing something that isn't out and it's just like vague research about the third season.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:BEFORE. IMDB is user generated content, not professional reviews [8] Your suggestion seemingly would have us excluding industry-specific sources across the board. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This still doesn't answer the WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTGUIDE portions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting we delete all discographies, filmographies, episode lists, etc.? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm suggesting we delete all lists of DVDs unless there's substantial review of their contents as being part of a DVD collection or a commendation on contents of the DVD. If it's just a review of the episodes then that content belongs on an episode list or the article on the TV program. Not spun out into this list of just three seasons of a 20+ season franchise. If this list is expanded to cover all of Power Rangers and just not the Mighty Morphin seasons, then I could see a utility for this list. As it stands it's pointless. Most of this can be covered elsewhere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is that? If every entry in the list isn't notable then that means the list as a whole is notable? That's just utter bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notional Merge, which will effectively be a Keep. Could be merged into Mighty Morphin Power Rangers#Home_media, however this would no doubt make that article too long and lead to the recreation of this article as a breakout article once more. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:33, 3 August 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autofac (software)[edit]

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

I'm not finding any news, and only blogs and the like. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I'm seeing several passing mentions in the dependency injection literature, but nothing of sufficient heft that would allow an article to be written. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - I'm unable to locate sufficient coverage to demonstrate that this topic meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT at this time. Gongshow talk 15:24, 28 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. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 18:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Lee[edit]

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

Blogs and the like for links. The Georgia Tech link is in their social media and not exactly RS as well. The gamezone is a very short blurb, Forbes isn't hardly a mention, and the rest seems the same. Lots of mentions. I'm pretty sure being an "award winning" cosplayer isn't enough to pass WP:GNG by itself. There is a fair amount of buzz around her, but buzz isn't notability, so I don't see how this passes WP:GNG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, or possibly either merge/redirect (to list of cosplayers, which is currently pretty crappy basically listing only links some articles and not even this one) or incubate/userify if needed. No, it's not "social media". It's an article by Kristen Bailey a communications officer for 3 years 8 months at Georgia Institute of Technology's Institute Communications (where you can see her listed in "IMPORTANT CONTACTS" second only to Michael Hagearty, "Director, Campus Communications and Special Events"). And what can possibly get a cosplayer "to pass WP:GNG by itself"? --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Closest claim to notability is appearing in a reality show, but not all reality show appearances give notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What makes a notable cosplayer, according to you? If "nothing", then it's not a good anwer. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sadly no evidence of any notability, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What would bring an "evidence of any notability," in a case of a cosplayer, for your liking? Articles in cosplay magazines, maybe? I don't know, please tell. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG is not N, but its pretty clear Monika Lee meets GNG because you have multiple non-trivial details including interviews and a TV show that focus on her. Many minor and reliable sources that give examples of her work, almost all of which are secondary and independent of the subject. This means it is presumed Monika Lee is notable and that because we can write a stand alone article of at least a few paragraphs - she does meet the requirements for inclusion. Its demeaning to say someone's profession or acts which generate year's long interest is not up to the bar for inclusion. Editors are reminded to check their personal baggage and beliefs and go on the very reason N and GNG were even made in the first place - To determine if Wikipedia can have and fill out a publicly useful article on a subject that is verifiable and credible. Its clear that the 28 sources in the article allow it to meet GNG and its a much better sourced article than many others because of its deep digging to try and sway this "cosplayers are notnotable" issue of Wikipedians. Look at it objectively and its clear that GNG was long since met. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28 mentions and blurbs in blogs isn't notable, and I have no personal baggage, as I think the whole cosplay thing is incredibly cool, but "award winning cosplayer" isn't automatically notable and she need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, which doesn't exist. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So being in a nationally broadcast TV series as a focus doesn't count for anything, not even halfsies? I understand the "game contestant" aspect, but many Survivor finalists and other select people from such series have their own articles because enough sources exist to write one. Meagan Marie from Game Informer - a major (if not one of the top) gaming magazines also noted Monika Lee and included a dedicated and detailed account of the process, I like to think that is more then "mentions and blurbs in blogs" because Marie was the Associate Editor of Game Informer who did interviews as part of her paid position. The King of the Nerds also highlighted that work as "the best cosplay ever" - which is a completely unrelated and well-recognized independent production within the culture. The Forbes blog note is small, but it highlights the work and doesn't conifer notability in this case - but I don't think anyone would. You have dozens of small ones and some higher ones like Comic Book Critic (not in article) [9] and another one from Diamond Comic Distributors [10]. Lee is not some random cosplayer and all the sources and unutilized sources still easily found show pretty clearly that it meets GNG. I don't care one bit about the Notability "minimum" from some guideline, we are talking pure General Notability Guidelines here - and its apparent that the bulk of these allow an article with no original research to be made. And that minimum is what Wikipedia's inclusion policies are meant to be based on - everything else is just CREEP. This reminds me of the months long and up-hill battle to get a multi-billion dollar success its own article... people just write off things that they deem of less "importance" - but it doesn't change the fact that this article informs people and all claims are well-backed as GNG articles require. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you are saying, but a line has to be drawn and I just didn't how this passed it. Maybe in part because cosplay isn't as mainstream as some other forms of entertainment. I actually did a lot of WP:BEFORE on this, looking for the gold standard two, or even close, and checked every single source, honestly figuring she was notable (new page patrol, the back of the list). I don't think that being on a reality show is enough to show notability, based on how most of the Big Brother and Survivor contestants don't have their own articles. Some do because they get exposure afterwords for similar or different acts, but most don't. But I can that others would disagree, so I just have to wait for consensus on it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the show? This is not a contestant type, the show actually follows their life and production of the costumes and the different venues they compete in. Yaya Han has been active for over 12 years as a major focal point, niche as cosplay is, it is more than just a hobby for some. Of those on Cosplay Heroes, several of the cosplayers run their own businesses and they are professionally booked by those in the industry. I draw the line at being able to write 1000 or so words about a person with decent and independent sourcing outside of the "1E" type for such individuals. I much rather have a well-sourced article on a person of "questionable notability" in the eyes of many than no article at all. Currently, this article is probably the best representation of her work and history in a single place, but it is lacking in appropriate details given the threat its under. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen the show, but I'm not much of a TV watcher. It is a Catch 22, but there is a fix, and I'm not against userification if it gets deleted. As a matter of fact, I recommend it if someone is willing to take it on. Maybe next year or next month it will pass, with a stronger source. When I run across these articles, I just have to run it through my interpretation of what passes GNG, and if I think the community will delete, the I nominate. It really is that simple and has nothing to do with the subject matter itself. I seek and post insanely cool cosplayer images on Facebook for family and friends, and if I was 30 years younger, might even get into it myself, but this isn't about what I think is cool or not. I need to see just a bit stronger and more independent sourcing to fit I try to make an objective standard here at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Disapointing that "buzz" isn't enough to pass notability, but that is the policy. It would be good to recreate on down the line if she doesn't drop off the radar and proper sourcing can be found. But right now, as Dennis said, it just doesn't pass GNG. United States Man (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually it's not. The word "buzz" (maybe that's "buzz" for BuzzFeed/King of the Nerds's "best cosplay ever" thing?) is nowhere to fuind at all at in neither Wikipedia:Notability or (unmentioned here) Wikipedia:Notability (people). Btw, it's funny when you read "Then the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) and then write things like "Delete ... It would be good to recreate". --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:13, 25 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. Deor (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Sanchez Zinny[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO. Article is created by Formar Foundation, which has strong links to Gabriel Sanchez Zinny. Article has been updated by IP Address account since then to complete. Believe it's not notable, and merely a puff piece. scope_creep talk 19:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear violation of conflict-of-interest creation of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few independent secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 28 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. Deor (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowmont Village[edit]

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

Just down the road from me, but still, I just don't find reliable sources that allow it to pass WP:GNG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the nomination for speedy deletion. The article now has links to five reliable external sources mentioning or dedicated to Meadowmont Village. Two of them are reliable secondary sources. 1) A page dedicated to Meadowmont Village on a tourist-oriented website hosted by the North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film and Sports Development, an official agency of the State of North Carolina and 2) a Yelp page dedicated to Meadowmont Village. This meets the WP:GNG standards that Dennis Brown refers to. As to the subject itself, it is a place that a significant number of people live in, work in, and shop at, and that is visited by a significant number of tourists who would like information about it. It is therefore notable and also well-documented by linked reliable primary and secondary sources! Larry Grossman (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should comment further that I believe that the Meadowmont Village is beyond notable - it is extraordinarily notable - in that it is the site of one of the first homes in the U.S. with air conditioning. This is the reason I started the article, because I was dismayed that there was no article in Wikipedia about the community in which one of the first homes in the U.S. with air conditioning was built - the start of a significant development for the enire world.Larry Grossman (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK though with changing this article into an article about the greater community of Meadowmont. I see now that Meadowmont Village is just an area within Meadowmont. At a minimum, Wikipedia truly needs to have a separate article about Meadowmont, arguably one for Meadowmont and then a separate one for Meadowmont Village. Larry Grossman (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created the article for the greater community of Meadowmont, which is extraordinarily notable as the location of one of the first homes in the U.S. with air conditioning, but I see now that that home is not in Meadowmont Village. Meadowmont is what I really care about. I still think Meadowmont Village is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article since it has a large number of stores and offices and is well-documented, but I now concede that it is greater Meadowmont that has the extraordinary notability. Anyway, this has been a helpful discussion, I believe the Meadowmont Village article is greatly improved, a new article was born from this (Meadowmont), and I vote to keep the revised Meadowmont Village article. Larry Grossman (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense to me, and work on the larger Meadowmont article, using that info. I've not heard of the place, but would love to see more about it if it can be sourced. If eventually, the Village has enough sources to become a separate article, then by all means it should be created, but for now, deleting and then I suppose redirecting the Village name to the main article, makes sense. Like I said, I live here (in Lexington, work in Greensboro) and I work on tons of NC articles all the time, but they still have to pass the criteria. By the way, you might want to join WP:WikiProject North Carolina if you are interested in NC articles in general. We don't have a lot of active members and can always use more. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources on offer appear to the links on the article, and they come nowhere near satisfying WP:GNG; I don't see a single independent reliable source among them.
Larry Grossman's comment about the air-conditioned house confuses Wikipedia's concept of notability with separate concept of importance. As to Meadowmont as a whole, that article also lacks any reliable sources independent of the subject, and should also be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to BrownHairedGirl's comments,are you sure you reviewed all of the links? You said you did not see a single independent reliable source? You don't consider a website run by the state government of North Carolina to be an independent source? And you don't consider Yelp to be independent? ...and you don't consider either one to be reliable? Larry Grossman (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Larry, that's correct. Not a single independent reliable source. Please read WP:RS and WP:N.
    http://www.visitnc.com is a website which exists to promote the area; is fundamentally advertising, and as such it is is not independent.
    Yelp.com is WP:USERGENERATED, which is not reliable.
    http://meadowmont.net/ is published by the Meadowmont Community Association, so it too is not independent.
    In summary, the sources so far show a complete absence of anything which might go even part way to satisfying WP:GNG. Unless new sources are found, there is absolutely no basis for having an article on either Meadowmont Village or Meadowmont. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I've stated above.Larry Grossman (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same reasons as Dennis and BrownHairedGirl. There are no independent reliable sources for it to pass GNG. United States Man (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Need reliable third party sources. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:25, 31 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Crash (guitarist)[edit]

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

Not to be confused with the band or Johnny Cash. Non-notable and no indication of such. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable musician with no sources to support his supposed influence. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 02:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree that it fails WP:MUSICBIO. United States Man (talk) 04:59, 25 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Rocks[edit]

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

No indication of notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seven-year-old article which apparently never had a decent version. Couldn't find sources with anything other than mentions or essential data only. Btw, the creator of the page (User:Thedeadrocks) is a potential WP:COI account and it's user page is pure promotional text for the band, this is a violation of WP:UP#PROMO, isn't it? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 02:38, 25 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jace Norman[edit]

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

PROD deleted - Not a notable actor per WP:NACTOR. Only two minor roles and listed in the lead role for a series that hasn't aired as of this date. Even with series lead does not have multiple significant roles. Fails WP:GNG as has received no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor actor lacking references needed to establish any notability. reddogsix (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article should be redirected to Henry Danger and tagged with a ((redirect with possibilities)) until notability as an actor can be demonstrated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 26 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. postdlf (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fraestar Tomb[edit]

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

Hoax: There is no limestone on Rousay and 'Fraestar' is not mentioned in any of the claimed sources. No ghits. No sign of it on RCAHMS. Ben Mac Dui 16:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each of the references does not mention 'Fraestar', this must be made-up. Frmorrison (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax it is! Some people have too much time on their hands JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. A hoax. Could've probably been speedied (if that's a word). United States Man (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I certainly thought about a speedy but my guess was that as I am one of the few Wikipedians who has been to Rousay and it took me ten minutes of checking to be sure, that a passing admin would likely decline on the grounds that it wasn't an obvious hoax. Another feature of the article is that there is, let's say, some similarity of interests amongst the editors. I may look into this further if time permits. Ben Mac Dui 09:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An elaborate hoax, but appears to be a hoax nonetheless. I wondered if it might perhaps be better known under a different name, but as far as I can tell none of the tombs on Rousay are in the location described here. --Deskford (talk) 13:15, 25 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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohev Shalom Talmud Torah Congregation of Olney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

does not meet WP:ORG. Houses of worship have no inherit notability. Nothing historic happened here, no architectural significance, not the "first" of anything, not even old. John from Idegon (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy close~~ (Struck, see below. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)): Déjà vu? You had just agreed to redirect. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did, and I got an admin to close it and I redirected it. Another user came along and undid it. Has yet to add a reference to notability, but still had to undo it. Probably because there aren't any. If the legal case wasn't noted anywhere it says nothing about notability, and an article about a rabbi that worked there doesn't either. John from Idegon (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice that you redirect had been reverted; the nearly identical nomination rationale confused me. I've struck my "speedy close" vote accordingly. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because 1 the article has been re-written and updated with WP:V & WP:RS, 2 in addition the ongoing leader and rabbi of this synagogue is WP:N as many of the footnotes and citations in the sources located at the bottom of the article prove this, he has been cited in scholarly publications for his rabbinical work e.g. see this Oxford University Press publication (PDF), see p. 7 which is part of a co-joined kollel and Jewish outreach center of the synagogue. 3 The synagogue was involved in a serious legal dispute [11] with the former synagogue it was part of as reported in The Washington Post [12] [13]. 4 In addition, please note the key word "Congregation" also known in Hebrew as a Kehilla because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. 5 Also, on WP there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable. 6 It is also unfortunate and insensitive that this AfD pops up when there is still the ongoing issue regarding RfC:...mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues. 7 Therefore the nominator is respectfully requested to withdraw his nomination as the article now meets all WP requirements of WP:NPOV with more than sufficient verifiable and reliable sources. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coverage that would show the Rabbi to be notable still would not make the congregation notable, but i haven't seen anything that makes him notable either. Despite the claims made above, most of the sourcing is not of the WP:RS type (most are content from websites and non-reviewed academic papers). Of the potentially reliable sources, all but two are affiliated with the denomination and hence are not WP:INDY, so they cannot speak to notability. There are two newspapers (3 articles total). Two of the articles speak about a court case and not much on the temple itself. The third one is a local paper giving the expected coverage of the opening of a new house of worship. No secondary reliable sourcing from outside Metro DC, so even with the rather weighty addition, still fails WP:ORG. The article is also written in a manner that would be hard to understand without at least a working knowledge of Judaism. That isn't the proper tone for an article here to take, but that is no reason to delete it. Lack of notability certainly is. John from Idegon (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon—the rabbi is part of the congregation. You are saying "Coverage that would show the Rabbi to be notable still would not make the congregation notable, but i haven't seen anything that makes him notable either." He is a rabbi in addition to being part of the congregation. But he is a part of the congregation. The rabbi makes use of the synagogue setting just as any other congregant. For instance there is the need for a minyan. The rabbi is availing himself of the others in order to satisfy religious requirements such as the need for a minyan. I think many other examples can be given as well in which the rabbi is as much dependent on the other congregants as the other congregants are dependent on the congregational rabbi. This is not just an employee/employer relationship. I notice you saying on your Talk page, "Having a notable employee does not make any organization notable."[14] I don’t think this represents a correct understanding of the situation. An institution (any institution) has an ongoing intellectual thread. A rabbi is chosen by a congregation because certain ideas that the rabbi holds are consistent with certain ideas held by most of the congregation. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The incorrect understanding is on you, Bus stop. Just read WP:INHERIT. The entire thing about the rabbi is a red herring. John from Idegon (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: a rabbi of a synagogue is a "herring"? Nice joke! a rabbi and a synagogue/congregation/yeshiva/Hasidic dynasty go together like a "horse and carriage". It starts with Moses who according to Judaism was the first rabbi and the Children of Israel were his congregation, and it continues to this day. Have you even read this article seriously and not with an eye to get rid of it? Rabbi Shaya Milikowsky has been the one to lead this congregation from the start. He led the legal breakaway from the "mother congregation" it sprung from. He has made this into a unique congregation with a direct connection to a kollel which he also heads (and anyone who does not know what these terms mean should not be discussing this subject), and this rabbi that you just don't WP:LIKE has added an adult educational outreach center, and a program for less Jewishly religious families and children, all in the course of about a decade in real life, real time, with real efforts noted by the verifiable sources. This is all new in that location and it is both significant and encyclopedic. Now it also happens to be that as far as Orthodox Judaism is concerned the rabbi is well-known in his own right and is cited in the relevant literature that looks into these kind of communally active rabbis. Not sure why you are denigrating the excellent sources, including from Oxford University Press in England and Bar Ilan University in Israel. From where else should a successful rabbi be recognized, from China or from the Catholic Church? In any case, WP does not require that articles about any subject be plu-perfect amazing finished products on the level of a groundbreaking study and cutting edge research. As long as sufficient WP:V & WP:RS are cited, and in this case the rabbi is WP:N as well, and the article adheres to WP:NPOV this article definitely meets all the basic WP requirements and it therefore is difficult to see why you are applying the most microscopic and obtuse "rules" that just looks like a desperate effort at WP:LAWYERING stemming from a severe case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. At this rate fictional and Walt Disney characters, even minor ones like "Tinkerbell" would not stand a chance in hell of being on WP because they are less than "red herrings" since they don't even exist in reality and have done nothing anywhere at any time ever. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. The article under discussion fits well within Wikipedia's scope. It is an institution not unlike an arts institution or an institution of secular education. Wikipedia has articles on relatively small institutions. An example might be Timbo High School. Wikipedia has articles on many such relatively small United States high schools. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article, as expanded, provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Schools have been granted a blanket notability for high schools only. This has been policy for a long time. No such policy exists for local houses of worship. If you want to argue the merits of a policy, start an RfC or take it to the village pump. I would appreciate it if you would keep your arguments here based in policy, not what you wish the policy would be. A house of worship, just like an art museum, still has to pass WP:ORG and this one doesn't. What portion of Wikipedia's scope do local houses of worship fall under? John from Idegon (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or perhaps "weak delete", because I am relying on common sense to ignore the coverage of the court case, not on policy-based arguments (the case was covered not because of Ohev Shalom of Olney's significance, but because of Ohev Shalom of Washington's). The other sources (those that I have sampled: a few, maybe most) seem to be either passing mentions or directory listings, or else are not sufficiently independent. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has many similar articles on relatively small United States high schools. --Yoavd (talk) 08:06, 29 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ENHANCE International LLC[edit]

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

Delete, provided references do not show this to be a notable company. One is a schedule to a seminar, the other is a two or three sentence bio on the co-founder and the last is just a company profile. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a company that has been quoted by the Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CNBC, Bloomberg Businessweek amongst others. Also please go to investing.businessweek.com. User did not look at that link. You will find the company in there. Only companies that are potential for going public or may be target for investment are listed in there. Below are a few of the links mentioned:

~~Bloomberg^[1]Bloomberg ,^[2] The Wall Street Journal^[3] ^[4], The Economist,^[5]Financial Times^[6] --Magedboc~~

~~Weak keep~~ article seems to satisfy WP:GNG, but not too sure it'd satisfy WP:N. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Philg88. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I agree with user above that it clearly meets WP:GNG as these are unquestionably reliable sources and more importantly they are multiple highly reliable sources. In terms of WP:N I agree with the other user above that if Bloomberg has listed them in their investment database. they have potential as a future investable company. Finally i found this additional article in The Financial Times ^[1] it appears that all the major reliable business sources look to this company for events in China's Financial Services development. China's economy is by far a notable topic and the financial services industry will drive the economy's future transformation --Edisonmag — Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

^ "Policy changes spark signs of life in China insurance". Financial Times 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of these sources covers the company in detail, as required by WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep this reliable source provides a summary on the company^[1]. I also found this article on the Chengdu Global Investment Summit in Chengdu China where the company is the feature of the article ^[2] I also found a bunch of articles that were in Chinese that I assume my not be useful for English speaking editors/commenters --yafangari — Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete None of the many sources provided are more than a passing mention. To satisfy the guideline for corporations, significant coverage is needed, not just mentions or quotes from someone who works for them. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I have counted - now there are at least over 10 references to the company and that may not be the final count. You are talking about almost all of the most credible financial media sources, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist just to name a few. If that is not significant coverage, I don't what is Gosarkis (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC) *Keep Do a search on Insurance in China or China's demographics and you will find that this company is the main source Taalasarcu (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe we need a sockpuppet investigation.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete (I was half asleep) – per Philg88. ~~Agree that it meets GNG;~~ disagree that Hell in a Bucket is a sockpuppet (if that was who the IP was refering to; I may be wrong). United States Man (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply User:Magedboc, User:yafangari, User:Gosarkis and User:Taalasarcu seem to be sockpuppets, since they were created after this afd began.@United States Man:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes better sense. Sorry. United States Man (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Defintely not a sockpuppet ;) I don't mind checkusers checking me though. If the community trusts them with that info I'm ok with it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the General Notability Guideline. The references cited and those quoted above are passing mentions/press release reprints and do not provide the required significant coverage (Note that I am unable to access the FT article cited by Edisonmag). I'm also not seeing the type of in-depth coverage on Chinese sites, which I would expect for a notable organisation. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the comments above--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:13, 25 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. The sole keep !voter has not provided a valid, policy-based rationale. Deor (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Cast[edit]

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

A nomination for an award is not notability DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:37, 10 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:06, 17 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, czar ♔ 15:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps the nomination is not enough, but I think the time the podcast has been ahead helps. Their Facebook has 7427 likes, Youtube channel over 6700 subscribers, and was viewed 635 times this month, so there are a decent number of fans. Frmorrison (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies to Frmorrison, I'm afraid I wouldn't give weight to either of his or her !votes in this debate. Neither the number of references the article has, nor the number of likes their Facebook page has, nor the number of subscribers their Youtube channel has, are contributors to notability. What this content needs is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources and I haven't been able to find any. Delete.—S Marshall T/C 19:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agreed with S Marshall. None of that social media junk carries weight on Wikipedia. ~~Also, shouldn't one of those "keeps" be discounted, as they are from the same user?~~(removed by user) United States Man (talk) 05:13, 25 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 00:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centrum Babylon Liberec[edit]

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

NN 323,000 sq. ft. shopping mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 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, czar ♔ 15:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significance for a stand-alone article. Already mentioned in the List of shopping malls in the Czech Republic anyway. Brandmeister^talk 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brandmeister and nom. Me5000 (talk) 17:58, 31 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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesterlads[edit]

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

Although their videos have gained viral fame, there's nothing notable about JesterLads per se. I can't find significant coverage of the channel itself, only trivial mentions of their videos. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Yes, one of their videos got mentioned a few times, but that's not the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 17 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, czar ♔ 15:34, 24 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 Alessandro Defilippi. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angeli (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable book JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alessandro Defilippi, barring any discovery of Italian sourcing. I can't really find anything to verify that this book merits an article at this point in time. I can't really find much for the author either, although I will say that I'm looking using Google Translate, which has obvious flaws. I've asked WP:ITALY to help look for sources, although I don't know that they'll find any. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 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, czar ♔ 15:34, 24 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. Soft delete due to lack of quorum. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau for Open Culture[edit]

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

lack of (non passing mention) RS on the org -> fails GNG, COI, previously PRODed. i.e. there's some sources on activities of it, but lacks a couple of RS and more to write an article Widefox; talk 11:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:29, 17 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, czar ♔ 15:33, 24 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 06:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Necmettin Bilal Erdoğan[edit]

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

Not a notable person (only a relative of a notable person) Gilded Snail (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

__________

To a US/English reader Bilal Erdogan may not be seem notable at first glance. But in Turkish context, esp. after AKP's corruption scandal he was one of the guy on the focus because of his recorded phone tapes with his father (RT Erdogan) and the foundation (TURGEV) that is by run him. Thus I'd say he is much more notable than just being the son of a PM.

To support my claim I made a search on Google News and here are the results:

Bilal Erdogan found 44300 articles > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=bilal+erdogan&tbm=nws

Arbitrarily, I chose Chealsea Clinton and it found 22000 articles > https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=chelsea%20clinton&tbm=nws

Regards Yakamoz51 (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yakamoz51, I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was more context to be known. Is Bilal Erdogan notable outside of the AKP scandal/TURGEV issues? Perhaps the contents of this article can be merged with the articles about the scandals. If his main notability is because of a specific event, normally that person is put under the article for that event, but there are lots of exceptions. Thoughts? Gilded Snail (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He became more famous after the corruption, but I think he deserves his own article on WP. Yakamoz51 (talk) 08:47, 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) 15:35, 17 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, czar ♔ 15:32, 24 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popsmear[edit]

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

Non charting album with no reputable coverage, by non-notable band StuartDouglas (talk) 14:25, 17 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 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 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, czar ♔ 15:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NALBUM JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nothing even related to this seems notable. United States Man (talk) 05:19, 25 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cablenet[edit]

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

This article is an advertisement for the company. It begins by showing off the company's strong points and proceeds to list the channels they offer. The only thing missing is price information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savinos (talk • contribs)

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

Relisting comment: AfD was not properly created or listed. This marks the first actual listing on a log page.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- AfD tag was applied by an IP. The creation of this discussion page is the above editor's only edit to date, presumably the same person. Article has already undergone some cleanup since the tag was applied. I'm staying officially neutral on the deletion question. --Finngall ^talk 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article remains merely an advert, with no sourcing and, as the OP says, is lacking only a price list. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:21, 23 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, czar ♔ 15:31, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The True Post[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, being submitted to festivals is not equivalent to being shown at a festival BOVINEBOY2008 12:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. Future festivals screening may gain this some coverage, maybe not. Project was released on the internet July 11, 2014 and has not received the requisite coverage. If (or when) it does, an undeletion or recreation can be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:41, 16 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, czar ♔ 15:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MichaelQSchmidt - No evidence of notability, I too wouldn't object to recreation or un-deletion once it becomes more notable. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:55, 24 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. Given the lack of participation I searched google.es for something that might bring this back, but everything I found was self-generated or non-reliable sources. Therefore I'm closing this as WP:NPASR, with no prejudice to recreation if the subject ever actually meets WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comalcool[edit]

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

This article was speedied as WP:G11 (spam), but was re-created in the same form by the original author. I'm putting it to discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 11 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 17 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, czar ♔ 15:29, 24 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ImmunoGen[edit]

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

Company article with no reliable sources, except some PR. No indication of importance. BiH (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted, the sources provided in the article are all primary or otherwise not independent, but there is plenty of independent coverage available. As a publicly traded company it gets all the usual financial coverage [15] [16], and there is news coverage [17] [18] and journal reporting [19] as well. The article needs some of these references added, but they are sufficient to show the company notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 13 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 03:11, 16 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, czar ♔ 15:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Frankly any company publicly traded on major U.S. stock exchanges NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ should be deemed wikipedia-notable as a matter of policy/guideline/style. I understand that there exists, explicitly, a statement that the wikipedia-notability is not assumed, however. It's a waste of AFD attention to discuss these. Maybe this repeats what MelanieN said above, but here is link to news headlines on the firm: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/imgn/news-headlines?page=2 . Publicly traded firms are of obvious importance to readers, and there is automatically tons of well-reviewed information published about them (e.g. SEC filings), and plenty of coverage by financial analysts and press. CALL FOR CLOSURE as obvious. --do ncr am 02:01, 30 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. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Dawn[edit]

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

Non-notable band JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 5 albums on Metropolis Records is a pass of WP:NMUSIC and suggests that sufficient coverage will likely exist. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Michig. Passes WP:Music #5 Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels; namely, 5 releases on the Metropolis Records label; also #2 Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart; namely, assertion that the album Enjoy the Fall achieved #3 position on the German Alternative Chart in June 2007. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:28, 8 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 03:30, 16 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, czar ♔ 15:15, 24 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 Dental nurse. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dental Nursing[edit]

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

Non-notable journal Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per WP:CHEAP to Dental nurse. The subject is notable, but I am not sure about the journal itself. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with a redirect, but there's absolutely nothing worth merging. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:34, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 16 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, czar ♔ 15:10, 24 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 Wrong Venue - Listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 24 as is a category. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States National Film Registry films[edit]

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

The article is an incomplete list of National Film Registry films that is linked from the National Film Registry page, which contains a complete list. ThunderPumpkin (talk) 14:09, 24 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 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:34, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secret's of Romance[edit]

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

This looks like a howto essay on relationships. Prod was removed by the creator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. I agree that this looks like an essay on relationships. I can't imagine what else it could be. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTESSAY without even a vague stab at sourcing. (Has there ever been a decent article that began its life with a greengrocers' apostrophe in the title?) Deor (talk) 11:24, 1 August 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. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The First Intimate Contact[edit]

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

Can't find any reviews to demonstrate notability; seems to fail WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book is mentioned in multiple sources ([20][21]) as one of the earliest web novels in China and has been adapted as a film. It is also reviewed in multiple research papers ([22][23][24]). It seems to pass WP:NBOOK criteria 1 and criteria 3. @Mikeblas:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 14:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the general notability guideline based on the sources cited above plus the other seven in the Chinese Wikipedia article. Needs expansion though. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:27, 26 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems like a local self-published article and the author is irritated that someone else appears to have plagiarized its content. The article contains no references that suggest notability and I find nothing online that suggests any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paucity of references in English because it is a Chinese phenomena, which doesn't make it any the less notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources on Chinese Wikipedia plus noted above. -- GreenC 04:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NBOOK.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MagicSpam[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to be meeting Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for organizations (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services. Well, it has managed to survive three years, a week around. All sources related to the subject come from the primary and unreliable blog sites. There is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. There is zero hit on Google news and apparently nothing helpful either on Google books. It is therefore ineligible for inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the developer's page per WP:PRODUCT.Charles (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesdrakew: - Developer's Wikipedia article is a red link, LinuxMagic. There appears to be no parent article to merge or make a redirect. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should have checked. In that case delete.Charles (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage of the subject in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Not seeing any reviews or other significant coverage in WP:RS. Does not meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:50, 25 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. Ekabhishek^talk 03:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarjubala Devi[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, @Jinkinson: She is notable Indian boxer, please have a look; I just tried to restructure the content and added some reliable references. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 17:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability seems clearer after the fix-up and she may meet WP:NBOX. Youth events don't really count and I do have one question. In 2011 she is listed as Gold at the national level for both senior and junior. Which one was it. The tone is still a little breathless.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - @PRehse: I think your AfD nomination for Sarjubala Devi was reasonable since the article during nomination was really worse, but now it can be expended with the support of reliable references. For any other query please follow the cite. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 17:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:ANYBIO and the achievement has been published in this national newspaper -- Sahil (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe she meets both WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 26 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. I am going to close this already now per WP:SNOW and CSD criteria A7 (no assertion of notability) and G11 (promotional). No need wasting the community's valuable time on an AfD here. Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Mosharruf Hossain[edit]

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

Unsourced article about them self. BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes some claims that sound significant but which are totally unsourced. I think the author is making a claim as an academic, but absolutely fails WP:NACADEMICS. -Xpctr8 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant self-promotion. Could have been speedied. --Dmol (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION Blatant self-promotion. (I was going to speedy it!) Userpage needs to go too as it's basically the same as the 'article'.--220 of ^Borg 13:07, 24 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olicamera[edit]

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

Article about a 20 minute long, non-notable future YouTube film. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Fai zan 19:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Olicamera Hazeeb C H Abdul Majid Amal Prasi Thattikkoottu Productions

Delete for currently completed unreleased film failing WP:NFF for lacking coverage in reliable sources. To be clear, my delete is not based upon the inapplicable complaints about length or distributor. Length is not a concern for film notability, as many short films have been found notable. And being distributed though YouTube is also not a deletion criteria, as some films released that way have indeed been the recipient of coverage to meet WP:NF. The only valid issue in the nominator's statement is the lack of coverage. Allow undeletion or recreation after release and only if it gains coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To help clarify: The first sentence describes the article and the subject. The second sentence give the rationale for deletion.- Mr X 01:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that meager description might serve editors unwilling to click the link to see the article for themselves. My own "clarification" addresses a nom statement appearing to use length and distributor as part of the deletion rationale, when they are irrelevant. Lack of coverage is the sole valid reason. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination and comments from @MichaelQSchmidt: should be considered. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:01, 27 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Norway terror threat[edit]

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

Well, subject passes Wikipedia general notability guideline, but seriously, Wikipedia is not CNN but an encyclopedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. These type of warnings are announced all the time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Lugnuts. Unless there is other evidence to prove that something actually happened that prompted this warning or after then I would say delete. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Norway terror threat of 2014 have been object for a massive media attention, as it is broadly covered by most, if not all, major medias in Norway along with medias from the other Scandinavian countries, and also by international medias like CNN. This is the first alert of this kind ever in Norway, with extencive boarder control, and what appears to be a huge mobilization and arming of the police forces. I have though no strong feelings either way when it comes to notability. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The great CNN does nothing to make this noteworthy (WP:NOTNEWS). United States Man (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in Google books. Most of the attention is in regards to an unnamed future event that may or may not happen, and at Wikipedia, we don't need to speculate about the future, we can wait for it. Unscintillating (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Keep or Redirect and merge: I believe it is both notable and relevant in the BM & RM version of Wikipedia, but probably not in the English version. A concrete terror threat, followed by armed police in the streets and nearly closed borders, is of course dramatic for most Norwegians. The article could perhaps be redirected to Terrorism in Norway ~~(now used as a redirect itself, but that may be changed)~~ together with information concerning the 2011 attacks and the Oslo S bomb in 1982. No More 18 (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reconsidered my opinion. This case is not an ordinary terror threat, but—based on a terror threat—a contemporary and one day historical emergency situation reaching extensive proportions, lasting for several days, and involving a sovereign state. The case has also involved Nordic police and Nordic media. In other words, it is a real and lived situation. Otherwise, a former operative boss of the Danish intelligence services has summarised quite precisely what makes the case special: '[Normally, information regarding terror threats never reaches the people.] The only reason I can find [for the Norwegian intelligence services making this information public] is the national tragedy Norway experiences three years ago.' Link In addition to the several million humans whom this situation is affecting, a large number of people are seeking and will be seeking information about it, and this makes the article more notable than non-notable, the way I see it. No More 18 (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Norwegian intelligence agencies have received credible information concerning a terrorism attack in Norway in the following few days. Considering, amongst many things, the plausibility of this information, the previous attacks on Norway, namely the 2011 attack and the 1982 Oslo S bombing, as well as the extent of media coverage and police force mobilization, I would argue that this article should not be deleted as it covers a notable situation. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Gautehuus (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there has been written numerous articles on Wikipedia concerning potential situations, including the 2007 London bomb plot and the 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot. Gautehuus (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not just news. This event is going to play a rather big part in Norwegian history. Books will be written about it. bbx (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just because books may be made doesn't mean anything. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:14, 29 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, No More 18 (talk) 03:02, 29 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. People should feel free to perform further cleanup as needed, per MOS:DAB -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Instead of disambiguating fundamentally different topics, this page merely offers a list of articles about history of Serbia, pretty much duplicating the contents of Template:History of Serbia. WP:DABNOT specifically says " do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference", and I think that all entries on this page violate exactly that. A brief research of all pages starting with 'Serbia' does not show anything else worth disambiguation, so this page should be deleted. No such user (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. 10:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. 10:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep. I've deleted the inappropriate entries, but that still leaves plenty of states that could reasonably be called Serbia. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And they are all that same Serbia in different historical periods. Compare e.g. Poland (disambiguation) (a good example) and Slovakia (disambiguation) (which is worse than Serbia). No such user (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, they're not the "same Serbia"; if they were, they wouldn't need separate articles. In the second, the purpose of a dab page is to list things that are referred to by the same name. There are quite a number that qualify in this particular case. As for Slovakia (disambiguation), I've nominated that for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But let's please be consistent. The entries in Serbia (disambiguation) relate to Serbia in exactly the same manner as Slovakia during World War II, Slovak Soviet Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic relate to Slovakia, and the difference between a "Slovak Republic" and a "Slovakia" (whichever period is referred to) is too subtle. My reading of the policy and the practice, that historical articles about a polity should not be listed on polity (disambiguation), but others may reasonably disagree. Maybe we should have a rfc somewhere at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation before these Afds? At least, I will leave a notification there to get a broader input. No such user (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia during World War II is a clearcut WP:PTM, and I see a significant difference between Slovakia and Slovak Republic, unless there is some explicit mention in a Republic article that the state was referred to simply as Slovakia. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was: [25] [26]. Or pretty much anything from GBook search Slovakia 1939
My point is that "Kingdom of Serbia" is as much a WP:PTM as is "Slovak Republic (1939–45)" (nb. Slovak Republic is a redirect to Slovakia). Either both should be included in the respective dab pages, or none. No such user (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not aware of any prohibition against polity articles listed on dabs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: entities like "Republic of Foo", "Kingdom of Foo" are likely to be referred to as plain "Foo" and do not constitute "partial title matches" of the sort which policy excludes from dab pages: there is risk of confusion because all these different "Foo" entities existed at different points in time and had different meanings (if they all meant the same thing, there would only be one article). PamD 12:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disambiguation is for different topics that have the same name, sub-topics of a main article do not belong there. As far as the Kingdom and Principality being Serbias, yes, they are a part of what Serbia is, they are not a different distinct topic. The nominator is correct, these entries make more sense as part of of History of Serbia template. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:33, 31 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 close. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. Deletion discussion is now open at Redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adomas Mickevičius[edit]

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

This redirect creates false impression about Adam Mickiewicz. Mickiewicz have never use dlithuanian firstname and surname. Adomas Mickevičius should be used only on lithuanian Wikipedia due to their language policy. Here we are on english Wikipedia where only original name of Mickiewicz should be used as he is decribed in modern history as Adam Mickiewicz. Andrzej19 (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the wrong venue for a redirect. The debate should happen at Redirects for discussion. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've changed it. Please close this debate. Andrzej19 (talk) 08:52, 25 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. postdlf (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee-Lynn Chadwick[edit]

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

Clearly a bit-part actor that falls well short of meeting WP:GNG criteria. Cited only to a listing in the 'Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television' book. I can't see any evidence online to think she'd meet notability requirements. Sionk (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bit-part actor. For example, in the film Prom she was in, the Wikipedia article has a list of 10 starring actors. She does not appear on that list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 23 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A search of this person's film credits shows nothing but credits for minor roles. A search of this person's name turns up nothing but facebook pages and other social media mentions. I'm sorry, but did you actually do any research into this before casting that "vote" ? Tarc (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person appears to have zero coverage in reliable sources; a search turns up social media pagaes, personal websites, last.fm, etc... Her film credits are singular appearances in tv shows, or far, far down the list in a motion picture billing. Many of the roles are not even credited with a character name, i.e. "Girlfriend #2", "Bar Girl", "Student", and so on. Subject doe snot pass any notability guidelines of this project. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has some major roles, but in pretty minor films, e.g. All American Orgy, and that, along with the lack of media attention, warrants a thumbs down from me. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NOTABILITY. She may become notable, but it is still WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:48, 25 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. WP:SNOW keep, per overwhelming, immediate opposition to deletion, as well as long-standing community consensus that lead to this compromise (see WP:PTEST). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon[edit]

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

violates WP:GAMECRUFT number 6. S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I hate to say it, it does violate the rules. Rectar2 (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: per nominator. Thanks, Mat ty.007 07:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GAMECRUFT is a guideline of the videogames project. I'm not sure it can be considered a proper guideline but, in any case, Pokemon are not just videogame elements; they are also characters in TV and movies; trading cards, physical soft toys and models, &c. Moreover, the nomination fails to consider the more detailed lists such as List of Pokémon (387–440). You should start with those before deleting the master list. The list in question is a true list rather than just being bundles of cruft and so has value as an index per WP:CLN. Andrew (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is ridiculous, but the history of Pokémon on Wikipedia is very, very long and contentious. The amount of discussion the whole issue has generated is out of all proportion to its importance. To give you an idea, there's a WikiProject Pokémon that still probably has fifty-odd active participants even now (and hundreds of historical ones). Wikipedians who were around in 2006 might remember the Pokémon Test? The whole thing blew up into a very long and convoluted discussion in 2006-7 which spread across an awful lot of places, but there's a good example here. We finished up with the compromise and uneasy status quo that we currently have about Pokémon, not because either side "won" the discussion, but because it became clear that nobody was ever going to.
I'm sorry, folks, but there's no way that point six of a content guideline dreamed up by a few editors at WikiProject Video Games outweighs all that historical discussion. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, I don't think there's any realistic prospect of achieving a consensus to delete the List of Pokémon.—S Marshall T/C 10:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pokémon notified.—S Marshall T/C 10:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They can NOT delete this. Pokemon on Wikipedia just has too much history. Also, @Andrew Davidson does have a point. WP:GAMECRUFT is for video games. Pokemon has a bunch of different things, like toys and TV shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMachine03 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entirely separate from notability or cruft; it's a handy index for all of the Pokémon covered in their own pages and in lists. Tezero (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No way is this a legitimate nomination, someone is screwing with us, I have no doubt. And that's the last thing I will say about Pokemon for years, I hope.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Pokémon is discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources. Either this index list or other detailed lists meet WP:LISTN.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snow keep. Plenty of secondary sources in a simple WP:VG/RS search (even in the article) assert the notability of a list of Pokémon. Moreover, gamecruft#6 doesn't even apply here (the list is basic identifying info). These aren't minutiae of a game but the mainstay of a gigantic franchise that has expanded well past video games. I'd even say speedy if there weren't other delete votes. czar ♔ 15:43, 24 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. As hoax, WP:V. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travares Miller[edit]

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

I am calling hoax here. None of the references correspond to the subject and in fact the misdirect seems deliberate. The subject does not occur in BoxRec (follow the reference links and it goes to someone else. I had thought it was originally a mistake but my attempt at correction failed. The fight record table is completely made up - or copied from elsewhere. The speedy delete tag for hoax kept on being removed. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the refs talk about the subject. Could not find him (or a similar name) on boxrec.--– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 06:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: good catch, nothing on Google, and no refs about him. If he is real, he's not notable, so delete anyway. Thanks, Mat ty.007 07:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Apparently his first victory was in the Detroit Masonic Temple. If you look at the boxing records for his opponents, they exist but have never fought this guy. --bonadea contributions talk 09:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best it fails WP:GNG. At worst it's a hoax. In either case DELETE. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most likely a hoax. United States Man (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. Links are to other fighters and the article's fight record appears to be made up. Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete surely a hoax. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:29, 31 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 00:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Alfonso Cerna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Utterly nonnotable person -No.Altenmann >t 05:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nothing of permanent, encyclopedic value in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Discussed somewhere around internet but nothing else. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The suicide was videotaped. Otherwise, this is a textbook biography of one event. Only enduring interest is on gore sites and snopes.com. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Choice Party[edit]

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

This is a minor political party that essentially only existed in one state, and never made any significant impact in elections, seemingly never electing anyone. This article fails GNG, which require multiple, reliable, 3rd party sources. Only one of the two sources is 3rd party, the other being the parties own materials. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Minor party, but notable enough to include as an article. If "significant impact in elections" was the criteria, we'd only have a 2–3 articles, and such a narrow or restrictive view would not be encyclopedic. I have categorized it in Category:Defunct political parties in the United States. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per S. Rich. Just because it is minor doesn't mean it isn't somewhat notable. United States Man (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's coverage in this book.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep small notable political party.--TM 19:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per S. Rich. Notable minor party that fielded ballot-qualified candidates in national and statewide elections.--JayJasper (talk) 20:48, 30 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imvbox[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Kansiime (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sourcing in the article appears to meet WP:GNG. What needs be determined is whether this online distribution platform meets WP:WEB or not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the article's creator. The first, third and fourth sources cited in the article discuss the topic (IMVBox) extensively. They detail IMVBox's aims as a company and mention the company's collection of films. Mairey3005 (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the article's creator. On the matter of WP:WEB: I have been monitoring IMVBox for some time now and to my mind IMVBox has gained a great deal of recognition over recent months. It seems that many newspapers and news agencies in Iran have picked up on IMVBox’s work and started to cover the company; ISNA, a major news agency in Iran, ran a piece on IMVBox's work and interviewed the director. What comes through in many of the articles is the understanding that IMVBox is fighting a longstanding problem in Iran: online piracy. There is a view, I think, that IMVBox is revolutionising Iranian cinema. It is after all the first time Iranian films have been gathered together on one website. Before IMVBox’s creation Iranian films were available on many websites for illegal download. Iranian filmmakers are beginning to recognise what IMVBox stands for and how it will help them in their work. The press release from 200 Iranian actors and filmmakers received a lot of attention in Iran, and IMVBox was at the centre of the campaign.Mairey3005 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a subscriber to the IMVBox website and have been for some time. I came across this Wikipedia page when accessing the website online and saw it was up for deletion. I would like to add that IMVBox is a extremely unique service, projecting Iranian cinema onto an accessible, digital platform and therefore indeed revolutionising the genre. It has enabled me to access both important and influential Iranian films that I would otherwise never have had the opportunity of watching. I believe it deserves recognition for continuously supporting a genre, that perhaps somewhat can become overlooked in Western society. The service provided by IMVBox also prevents and fights online piracy, therefore supporting a positive movement for cinema viewed via the Internet. I believe IMVBox deserves recognition and firmly believe it is in coherence with the WP:WEB guidelines. Ljayne92 (talk) 11:48, 26 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) 02:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It has some online sources and it seems like it is a good source for Iranian movies. Frmorrison (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the article's creator. I have just added an article published on BBC Persian that describes the work of IMVBox. BBC Persian surely must qualify as a credible source. Mairey3005 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 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 and salt as a recreation of a very recently deleted article, with all the same flaws still present. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Sent Gaming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable organization lacking secondary referneces. Appears to fail WP:ORG and other notability guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. Seriously? We're doing this again? This article just got deleted, recreated, speedy deleted, had its deletion upheld at deletion review, and the closing admin said that it should not be moved to article space without some kind of review from an experienced editor. This is becoming seriously disruptive, and I think it's finally time to call for sanctions and a possible SPI to find out who is behind these disruptive attempts to create an article for this organization. This is too much drama for one non-notable article, and it needs to be salted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I did not authorize this to be moved from my user space, @XiuBouLin: what's your rationale for this? Smile Lee (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the user XiuBouLin's reasoning was placed on the article's talk page. "I have recreated the article due to me not having an "advocacy for this organization". This publisher has a MARC21 Org record, meaning it is nationally accepted as a publisher. These records are not simply given out willy-nilly." Smile Lee (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This whole mess is extremely reminiscent of Toby Turner's article from a few years back. I don't want to have anything to do with this debate, or this article. So I'm withdrawing my vote. Smile Lee (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I requested a discussion on the talk page of the article, that was obviously overlooked, and I was not the one that removed the Speedy Delete, User:LuigiToeness did. I went off to lunch and all of this happened. There are multiple secondary references on this subject, it meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. This time there needs to be a civil discussion, no socks or any other nonsense. Let's move this discussion to the article's talk page, so we can correct it this time. AfD is not a place for fixing an article. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things of relevance to this subject's notability. They have MARC Organization Code, they are listed in ton of directories, a secondary source book covering them as a reference subject, chapter in another book, multiple mentions in newspapers and on talk radio (the Japanese article has been called a "passing mention", when its a front page article), a Wikimedia Commons category, and a Japanese Wikipedia article. I can go on and on (the last two are purposely lame/absurd). XiuBouLin (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Specifically, which reliable sources allow Heaven Sent Gaming to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"?
My review of the sources in the article indicated there were interviews (link and link), a letter from a reader that mentioned Heaven Sent Gaming's founders but not Heaven Sent Gaming itself (link), a Collins College Computer Science Dept. Newsletter (link), or passing mentions (link).
There is a paragraph related to Heaven Sent Gaming in this article (details from archive.org) from the The Albuquerque Tribune, which says:
Heaven Sent Gaming is an entertainment team, started by locals Mario J. Lucero and Isabel Ruiz. Their first strip comic, called Reverie, was to be released by United Feature Syndicate. Instead, following United Media recommendation, they will instead be distributing on the world wide web at heavensentgaming.com, I am looking forward to it. They are also working with local musicians, like Life Never Lost; Mario's a country musician himself.
The author is "The Anonymous Burqueño".
I don't see enough here to satisfy the GNG but I may be missing something.
Cunard (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/ThumbnailOfJapaneseNewspaperJuly27 says, "... story on elementary school in Nerima-ku, children coming home with silly Miyazaki spirit drawn on backpacks and homework. faces from Reverie internet comic by HeavenSentGaming.com children think cute and like draw character Bronjay. details on much information of Mario J Lucero with Isabel Ruiz makers of Heaven Sent Gaming. more details on origins of US NEW MEXICO. ..."
If there is more coverage of Heaven Sent Gaming not in the archive.org page, there might be enough coverage for the GNG. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this article from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 15#Heaven Sent Gaming. Would an admin fix the cut-and-paste move by history merging Heaven Sent Gaming and User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming? Cunard (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thank you Cunard, for that constructive comment. That ヘブンセントゲーミング is a summary of the main article, it's located in the middle of the page under the Harry Potter image, its a rather large chunk of text. The "Further reading" section has independent sources that are quite lengthy, specifically "Internet Legends" and "New Mexico Free Press"; the "Internet Legends" book obviously has reliability assertions, and is probably the cause for the interest on the subject by editors. This is the exact kind of discussion should be had on the talk page. Which is why I said "Speedy Keep", this shouldn't be a disruptive issue. This might be brought up for AfD later on, but doing it now is causing people to rush through resources. New sources kept coming up, throughout the AfD and the DRV, this needs to be slowly discussed, in actual article space. Especially for incorporating the general editor's help, there's obviously interest in this subject. XiuBouLin (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I botched things up even further, moved User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming to User:Heaven Sent Gaming, this Heaven Sent Gaming has been botch after botch. There needs to be more time taken with it, even I'm rushing. XiuBouLin (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneCut and paste move fixed by histmerging relevant revisions of User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming into User:Heaven Sent Gaming, then histmerging that into the mainspace article. There are some irrelevant revisions along the way (ones subsequent to the cut and paste to mainspace), and there's an odd jump in article size between the two userspace versions (you may have edited the article without saving, then pasted the unsaved version). But the article history should all now be in the right place. Euryalus (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard I will ping you, discussing sources on the article's talk page. This AfD is a distractions and disruptive, and will get nothing done, just like the last AfD and the DRV too. This article needs work, and AfD is not the place for article repair. Hopefully my "Speedy Keep" plea is heeded. XiuBouLin (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a "Notability discussion" to the talk page of the article. I've also asserted notability there, I requested this to be discussed there first, and it should be. AfD is not the place for article clean up. XiuBouLin (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating from the talk page of the nominator, "I think a Template:Notability notice would be more apt than an AfD. I too take some issue with the article, but the prior AfD was a mess, and there's no indication this will be any different. This needs to be discussed in a more civil manner. I have voted for a Speedy Keep for this reason." XiuBouLin (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My current assertions on the article's talk page, are as follows.

"Significant coverage": Interview with Mario (link), interview with Drew Cass (link) may be a passing mention, Rio Rancho Observer, Albuquerque Tribune (potential passing mention though I imagine Life Never Lost and Perrenials are passing mentions. Heaven Sent Gaming and Neil Patrick Harris have dedicated paragraphs), radio broadcast, Yomiuri Shimbun, main subject of an independently published book by Shigimori Shizuka, chapter in a book by New Mexico Free Press.
"Reliable": Interview is reliable, as BLP, directly involved with Heaven Sent Gaming, Rio Rancho Observer, Albuquerque Tribune, the book (Amazon and Google books)by Shigimori Shizuka asserts reliability as "a team of editors responsible for fact-checking and reliability... with experience at; 静山社 (Say-Zan-Sha), リクルート (Recruit), 小学館 (Shogakukan), and ゼンリン (Zenrin)" and "Scholastic, Penguin Random House, Macmillan, and HarperCollins", and I can't find anything on the New Mexico Free Press book except for this on Google Books.
"Sources": All of the above are secondary and tertiary sources. Since this is a publisher subject, their publications, published authors, and people directly connected with it should be used as sources themselves.
"Presumed": listed on several databases. Most importantly they have a MARC 21 ORG from the Library of Congress, meaning they are nationally accepted enough to require a shortened format for local, national and international libraries.
Sources like the interview with Mario, the book by Shigimori Shizuka, the radio broadcast, and Yomiuri Shimbun, meet WP:AUD, WP:CORPDEPTH, & WP:ORGIND. And, as I stated above, WP:GNG. XiuBouLin (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC) XiuBouLin (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, this time, salt so that there has to be a proper review of this article before it can be re-created. This was deleted very recently for lack of sources, the deletion was upheld because of the lack of sources, and now it's been re-created with sources that are, I'm afraid, still utterly inadequate. They are as follows:- (1) A youtube video; (2) Stats about someone's youtube account; (3) A podcast hosted on soundcloud; (4) A profile on http://www.cmt.com which is user-generated content; (5) An interview transcript (which is a primary source); (6) A reliable source (the Rio Rancho Observer), which looks better, but on investigation this is a passing mention advising us that two high-school sweethearts are starting a business together; (7) Something that sets off my browser's alerts about security certificates; (8) An interview transcript (which is a primary source); (9) Something that sets off my browser's alerts about security certificates; (10) A passing mention on an interview in local radio; and (11) Something in Japanese.
This is a marketing exercise disguised as a Wikipedia article. There are lots of good reasons why Wikipedia is attractive to marketers, and if we tolerated this sort of thing we soon wouldn't be able to find anything useful in our encyclopaedia because it'd be full of advertorials about people's corner shops and ice cream parlours.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: (1) Used to quote their first successful release by them; (2) Stats from one of their published YouTube channels indicating a relationship with Square-Enix; (3) The publishers official Soundcloud (4) CMT and MTV remove content if its not up to snuff after a week of two; (5) Interview is not primary, as it is published by a second or third party; (6) Yes, Mario and Isabel were starting a business, the one that's the subject of the article; (7) That's an image file, there's no reason for it to set off anything, it's an college newsletter; (8) An interview from The Boston Globe, its a passing mention, but displays a relationship between Drew Cass and confirms information from the college newsletter; (9) Does your browser hate image files? It's a scanned newspaper article from the Albuquerque Tribune; (10) Not an interview, its 12 minutes, from a completely different area than the publisher's location, discussing a controversy about Google shutting down Heaven Sent Gaming's AdSense; (11) Yomiuri Shimbun is the most widely distributed paper in Japan, with multiple editions, some are not web cataloged, this one has a scanned page describing an article talking about kids in Tokyo coming home with Heaven Sent Gaming's Reverie characters drawn on their bookbags and such, it also talks about who Heaven Sent Gaming is and about Reverie; You also forgot to mention the "further reading" section, which contains (12) the publisher itself; (13) an independently produced secondary source book discussing the topic in depth; (14) another book containing a multi-page chapter discussing the topic. This is not an "advertorial" for a corner shop or ice cream parlour, its a nationally accepted organization according to the Library of Congress. XiuBouLin (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying the community's patience with this.—S Marshall T/C 15:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as blatant marketing / advocacy. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, same reasons as last AFD, as well as per nom and NinjaRobotPirate. I do not plan to reply again to this AFD, it's already going down the same path of advocacy that the last AFD and the DRV went. -- ferret (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 24 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-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Annual: A Journal of Performance Studies[edit]

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

Contested G11. Promotional coat rack biased towards subject of journal. No independent sources listed. Barely adds to Theatre Journal. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For fairness reasons, this was the creator's contest rationale against the speedy deletion nomination:

This is an important academic journal, probably the 4th most important journal in the field of theatre and performance studies after Theatre Journal, Theatre Survey, TDR (journal). The information should remain online as a resource for scholars looking for 1) places to publish their work and 2) sources for research. It has the same information as Theatre Journal, which has been on Wikipedia for some time.

Mr. Guye (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I might be persuaded otherwise by an editor with special expertise in this branch of academic studies, but at first sight this appears to be a perfectly reasonable academic journal, and I had no particular difficulty in finding references to articles it has published. The problem with academic journals generally is that it's easy to prove existence, but it's much more difficult to prove notability for them. The people who publish in them, and even some particular articles in these journals, can easily be shown to be notable, but this is not the same thing as journal notability. In this case, I think the best thing to do is assume good faith in the above comment that this is one of the more significant journals in this field. If an expert in theatre studies claims otherwise, I could be persuaded otherwise, but for now I feel the balance leans towards "keep". For comparison, we have articles on the top five journals in my own academic area (indeed, we have many more than that!). In other areas, we are similarly comprehensive - see, for example, List_of_history_journals and List_of_physics_journals. I see no reason not to apply the same standards to theatre and performance studies. RomanSpa (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I find it dificult to assume good faith if an article contains claims that are demonstrably incorrect... This journal cannot be found in the ISI (Thomson-Reuters) Master journal list and therefore is not included in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index or Current Contents/Arts & Humanities, contrary to what the article claimed (I have removed this from the text). That casts doubt on the other claims of indexing made. Looking at Google Scholar, using either the full journal name (including the subtitle) or the shorter "Theatre Annual" does not provide convincing evidence that the journal has been cited a lot either. The only thing that makes me hesitate it the long history of this journal, which (even though the claim that it is the oldest journal in this -very small- field is not substantiated by independent sources) makes me think that perhaps there are some sources that we somehow fail to see. I'm surprised that the article creator has not chimed in here yet, as that editor might be able to provide better sourcing. In any case, at this point, this misses either WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 16 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) 01:37, 24 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 AMF Bowling Center. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 18:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

300 Bowling and Entertainment Centers[edit]

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

Non-notable company, only a handful of locations around the US. Merge would be acceptable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No centers currently operate under this brand. The centers were included in the formation of Bowlmor AMF in 2013 and now operate as Bowlmor Lanes centers. The creation of the brand and concept is adequately covered in the AMF Bowling Centers article and the heritage of the centers is included in the Bowlmor AMF and Bowlmor Lanes articles. User:TenPinGeek TenPinGeek (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 8 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 03:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per TenPinGeek's suggestion. Andrew³²⁷ 08:18, 17 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) 01:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to AMF Bowling Center. Insufficient sourcing to warrant inclusion. A reasonable search finds little distinguishing this subject from the redirect target mentioned. BusterD (talk) 02:05, 4 August 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 18:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunmore Candy Kitchen[edit]

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

Non-notable building. A place of local renown only. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are a few mentions in local press and a passing caption mention in a book by a local about the town but nothing by way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Certainly not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 8 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 03:18, 16 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) 01:31, 24 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. Arguments for deletion are clearly stronger.Mojo Hand (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vijoy S. Sahay[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Minor unrecognized research paper/work. Do we need individualistic approach for single low importance profile or event/s for each and every staff/professor of Indian University who does not even hold major academic work position. Drsharan (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not each and every professor (as the individual claims to be) can get their article on Wikipedia. The individual fails WP:PROF, unless he had an outstanding work achievement (which impacted his scholarly discipline) or research work or awards. The individual did not even hold any major incumbent in Indian University system. Couldn't find any reliable source that supports this article independently. The work is not cited in leading journal or publications. Minor event/research work. It is somehow an example of self-promotion. Drsharan (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Drsharan has said all that needs to be said.--Rpclod (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY KEEP Very good article and research work. Rksinghrules (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — Rksinghrules (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP NOTABLE CULT OF PERSONALITY. Papasingh (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC) — Papasingh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please don't SHOUT, my ears... --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE US AND THIS ARTICLE. PLEASE!!!! Rksinghrules (talk) 05:51, 23 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) 01:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Notability (academics) test, the person may be published but it was not significant in his field. Frmorrison (talk) 03:34, 24 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. Note the extended comments about improvements in the later part of the discussion. Note from closer: Nice save, well done. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malta University Historical Society[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since Sept 2013 and an orphan, this Society sounds like any other club or society on campus. Being "one of the oldest" doesn't make it notable. Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

*Delete -- It is a rare undergraduate society that is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Well it is a rare undergraduate society that produces an academic journal. this recent news link covers funding for the forthcoming 2015 issue of Storja, the journal, which can/should be covered here rather than in a separate article. And I am not sure that it is just undergraduate. With discussion of the journal itself, could this be a combo article that is valid? Try:

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

I note that per WorldCat (tho i am not sure this is a public link), the journal Storja is held at Columbia University, at the New York Public Library, in the Library of Congress, at the unversities of Cambridge and at Oxford, and elsewhere. --do ncr am 03:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources found include from editors of Storja itself (not independent coverage establishing notability, i understand, but probably accurate on non-controversial facts about the history of the Storja journal itself):

And there is an index to Storja articles at http://melitensiawth.com/Storja.html; that doesn't seem to include recent issues so I think not all of Storja is online.

--do ncr am 04:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here's one publication citing one article in Storja: http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/2615/medhist/management.htm, for what that is worth. --do ncr am 04:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on what I found, it seems to me that a combo article about the student society (which is both undergraduate and graduate) and the academic journal Storja (creating as a redirect now) which the society edits and publishes, is wikipedia-notable and should be kept. Others can disagree, but it is unusual in my view for a student society to produce an academic journal, which is a big undertaking, requiring funding for printing and serious work. Storja has been published in multiple issues over 30 years, and is continuing with a 2015 issue funded and presumably forthcoming. The society and/or the journal were founded by professor Andrew B. Vella, and it has survived at least one transition to another principal advisor (Vella is deceased). Another "Vella", perhaps Andrew B. Vella's father or other relative, appears in academic lit searches on "Malta" and "storja", in non-English language articles apparently on Malta history that have titles often starting with the word "Storja", which I surmise might mean "history" or "stories".

I rather think that any student-published academic journal, at least which has survived past 1 or 2 issues, is likely notable, as it is such a big and unusual undertaking. There exist only a relative handful; the Michigan Law Review is one definitely notable one, and perhaps there are others in List of law reviews in the United States. Currently there is no List of student-published academic journals and there is not yet a ~~Category:Student-published academic journals (though I will create the latter, i would be happy for it to be renamed if there is a better name and this could be discussed in a CFD)~~ (UPDATE: There is Category:Academic journals edited by students, which i will add to this and to the Michigan Law Review article). I mean to assert notability of academic journals, i.e. student-edited and published on an academic topic, even if wholly or mostly from one university, and not to include student-published literary journals such as collections of poetry and short stories from students within one or a few universities. Some might consider the contents of Storja issues to be somewhat low-level and somewhat inconsistent; I submit there are plenty of non-student journals that are such, or considerably worse. If a student journal only completed one or two issues, I would tend to think it should not have a separate article, but rather be a redirect to a list-article of student journals or a redirect to a university article's section about student activities (if there is coverage there about the jourrnal). This Malta University Historical Society and its Storja journal, however, have survived 30 years, have multiple issues, and are ongoing, and seem unusual and merit coverage. And there is more material available in sources cited (largely their own articles and editorials, I admit, but reliable enough for basic facts) than is appropriate for just an item in a list-article. It would be nice if there were more outside coverage identified, but there is likely to be more with its 2015 issue, too. So, Keep and let it be developed!!! --do ncr am 21:42, 22 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) 01:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Changed vote)Keep -- This is clearly more than a typcial student society. I note that the government is funding the publication of Storja, which presumably means that the government thinks that the journal is notable. Malta is only a small country, so that it could be that this is the only national academic journal on its history; if so, the journal is cealrly notable. Accordingly we need an article either on the journal or its parent society, and the later is better. The article needs to be expanded to explain mopre of the significance of Storja. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and the sources found. This stub still needs a lot more editing work. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intradeco Holdings[edit]

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

SpaldingTac requests deletion of article but cannot seem to figure out how to properly tag the article for deletion. The reason given by SpaldingTac was: "not much information. I couldn't meet the requirements to fix the issues. note that I am the original user but I cannot delete the page. any questions please email me at <email address removed>" --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will quote User:SpaldingTac from User:Piguy101's talk page: "I work for the company Intradeco and my boss told me he wanted the page deleted so I tried to delete it as the original user". There is obvious sign of COI editing in the article, and the references are either the company site, or dead or irrelevant (barring possibly the elsalvador one). Despite the boss wanting the page deleted - normally a challenge to me - I think it should go as not notable. The companies that sell their products may be notable, but who knows who makes them? Ever found out where BloggsCo source their tinned peas and beans from? Peridon (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SpaldingTac may be the original author, but if so, it wasn't done with that account. There have been other SPA names involved as well. This is why I declined a G7. Peridon (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 16 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) 01:21, 24 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 00:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Domains[edit]

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

Failed WP:PROD initiated by Noq. Reason for WP:PROD was: no indication of WP:notability. Newly released software with very few google hits.. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 01:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability failure. No significant coverage found in reliable independent sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:29, 25 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. Clear consensus to Keep (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me at the zoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't follow notability guidelines Rectar2 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How so? Its gotten years worth of coverage from reputable media sources in both the United States and Great Britain. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to have gotten the amount of in-depth secondary coverage by reliable sources that it deserves, and I guess that establishes its notability.BayShrimp (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage found in multiple reliable independent sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If deletionists had there way there would be no content on this website at all!, Passes GNG with flying colours!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a dyed-in-the-wool deletionist, I resent that remark. Why, on a good day, I'd allow one article, and if I'm in a really good mood, two. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It meets WP:GNG and is therefore notable. I'm a bit intrigued at why the nominator chose to nominate this. The prior nomination in 2011 was also screwy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be SNOW KEEPed without futher ado. Plenty of WP:RS and obvious notability. Why was this nominated? Was WP:BEFORE forgotten? --Jersey92 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Plenty of reliable sources; meets notaility. Questionable nomination. United States Man (talk) 05:31, 25 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:GNG, WP:DUCK. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Rehab Center Thailand[edit]

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

Cut sources not mentioning Hope Rehab Center, only one reliable source that mentions its foundation. Jppcap (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously edits undone and AFD removed by Thai IP. Jppcap (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Rehab center has been mentioned in several articles in global media sources, the above editor has vandalized the page frequently to remove these sources from the main page. Please see the references below, this in line with wikipedia's policy and should have not been edited down in such a way or marked for deletion. Paul Garrigan is an addictions expert who has written two books on addiction, more specifically addiction treatment in Thailand. Here are a list of references citing hope rehab: ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]^[6] ^[7] • dylanedit ([[User talk:dylanedit|talk] — Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope rehab center mentioned in the West Australian newspaper 18th May 2014: Image removed by Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER as it was a copyright violation.

Keep!Article shows good refs, deletionists strike again. Fed up with everything remotely new getting canned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.29.157 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV in an WP:RS was the Guardian piece [27], which is part of their blog but is written by a staff member so would be fine to establish notability. The rest, well, doesn't. It is just incidental mentions of people who went to that facility. If you could find more like the Guardian piece where they are talking about the Center itself as the main topic, then you would be fine, but I didn't see it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you argue for deletion after YOU deleted the West Australian article? Nay lad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanedit (talk • contribs) 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep!~~ In realtion to the above argument, the user has clearly not checked the links, there is NO Guardian article. There is TWO telegraph articles mentioning the center and up until this morning there was a photograph of an article mentioning it in the west australian newspaper. Two mentions in a global media source, plus a mention 18th May 2014 West Australian News. The founder Simon Mott is the brother of the famous punk artist Toby Mott who produced artwork for de la soul and many more famous acts of the 1980's ^[1] ^[2] Toby Mott Clearly states his brother Simon Mott is a therapist in the evening standard article - whom is the founder of hope rehab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.29.157 (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I modified your vote, since you only get one vote per AFD. And there is a Guardian article, I linked it for cripes sake. And I have to ask... Mr. 88.98.29.157, are you the same person as Dylanedit? You haven't participated outside of this one area and my Spidey sense is going off. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Dennis Brown. More information on the center itself covered by reliable sources would be needed to save this. United States Man (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough articles to cover guidelines set by wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanedit (talk • contribs) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage from just a single source won't cut it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources stated. Should definitely keep. Meets guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.72.67 (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient resources already provided to support the noteworthiness of this facility, and this article is relevant because 1) it is fast becoming one of the most popular addiction rehabs in Thailand 2) celebrities have gone to this rehab for addiction treatment 3.) The manager of this rehab (Simon Mott) is regularly mentioned in news articles for his work helping people break free of addiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.7.105 (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no wikipedia guideline has been breached. This article provides accurate information to help addicts seeking treatment in Thailand. Wikipedia should let it serve its purpose and not limit addicts from finding new options to recover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rynka (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are surely more than enough resources to support the continuation of this article. With references to celebrities past and present like Rob Ford in The Telegraph ^[3] and the fact that Simon Mott was specifically asked to comment on this and other news items, shows his and Hope Rehabs creditworthiness of helping people with addiction problems. In my humble opinion, and after reading some of the comments above, the fact that this article has been recommended for deletion, seems to show that someone is maliciously trying to ruin the chances of having what can only be described as a truly valuable and worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.180.11.211 (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article should be kept. The facility is run but the highly respected drug rehabilitation counsellor Simon Mott. His program's for rehabilitation are proven effective. His client base and success rate is extensive. This article provides addicts seeking help with substantial information to lead them towards a life saving recovery program. Michael Macnaught (previous client)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.46.73.37 (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason this article should be up for deletion. It has been mentioned in the media, one article of which I have read the others which can be verified if you take the time to look. I personally know someone who has been a client there and the reason they attended Simon Mott's rehab centre was because of a news article in the Telegraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paollo66 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 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 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

971p[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2009. I can't see how this monitor is notable - no other samsung monitor has a WP article Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 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, Davewild (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per WP:PRODUCT.Charles (talk) 13:08, 20 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 00:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability and it is just a model of a monitor. Frmorrison (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I am seeing is "Overview" articles which just have stats and price. None of the sources have decided it is worth writing a paragraph or two. It wouldn't bother me to redirect after deleting, but this particular piece of hardware appears to not be noteworthy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Not much info on it & no evdience of any notability neither. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious delete per nom. and comments above. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:41, 25 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.