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. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Learning Center[edit]

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

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

Lacks notability Muffinator (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It has no sources, and it isn't notable. EMachine03 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable learning institution....William 10:59, 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. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courrier (band)[edit]

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

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

Completely unsourced article about a band with no substantive claim of passing WP:NMUSIC — the closest thing to a notability claim here, in fact, is having been named "Band of the Month" by a media outlet which generally has next to nothing to do with music at all (and still isn't actually properly sourced.) Delete unless a major sourcing upgrade can be performed. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It might say, "They formed in 2009 and since have been featured dozens of times ranging from in The Vampire Diaries to NFL commercials. In April 2014, they were ESPN's Band of The Month.", but it is unsourced, so it still can't pass WP:NMUSIC, right? EMachine03 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The band would pass WP:NMUSIC if it met any of the criteria listed there. Whether or not the article contains sources is not relevant to the band's notability. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not entirely true; a band only passes NMUSIC if the claim that it passes NMUSIC is actually cited to a reliable source. Musicians and/or their promotional teams do have a tendency to make inflated "hype" claims (e.g. "hit" status for a song that got played a few times on their local radio station, but never appeared on any of the singles charts that can actually confer notability on a song), so at least the basic claim of notability does have to be properly referenced to count as valid, even if the rest of the article isn't up to FA status yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, a band could pass NMUSIC without even having an article here if any one of the criteria there is verifiably met ('verifiable' and 'cited' are not the same thing). --Michig (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I'd hope that more people wanting to write a new article about a band would measure that band against NMUSIC first to see if they qualify for an article or not — it would save us all the hassle of having to delete all the garage bands who repost their EPKs here in the hopes of getting "discovered". But NMUSIC is not fundamentally a property of the band per se, but a yardstick against which we measure the quality of an article about the band — so until we actually have an article about the band to measure, the band's nominal passage or failure of NMUSIC is a moot point. And NMUSIC does say, right in its own introduction, that the basic claim of notability has to be verifiable in a reliable source. The article doesn't have to attain GA or FA status right off the bat, but the basic claim of passing NMUSIC does have to be sourced, not merely asserted, to actually pass NMUSIC. Because guess what, sometimes bands overinflate their claims of notability in order to sound more notable than they are — so we need to be able to verify whether the claim of notability is actually true or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was unable to find much coverage of the band - there's a short Rolling Stone bio that confirms some of the statements in the article, but beyond that just these: [1], [2], [3], [4] - I'm not sure they're all reliable sources and it's a bit thin, so unless someone can find more I doubt that the band is notable enough. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Rolling Stone bio looks very much like it was just summarized from their own EPK, rather than being any form of substantive coverage actually written and edited by anybody who actually works for Rolling Stone. Bearcat (talk)

• Their album A Violent Flame was reviewed in CCM Magazine. (Conner, Matt. "Reviews & New Releases: Indie: Courrier: A Violent Flame", CCM Magazine (May 2011): p. 42.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - the top hits for a Google search (I tried Google news too, and got nothing) were their Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter accounts. Not a promising sign that they come anywhere near attaining notability. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:48, 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. Michig (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Barnes[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a member of a municipal committee in a single city, which is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL. While there is some reliable sourcing here, there's also primary/IMDb sourcing — and if you examine it carefully, exactly none of it is actually supporting any substantive content about her career itself. Rather, every last reference in the entire article is supporting a couple of criminal charges pertaining to her driving record, or details about her personal life, that have no bearing on her notability or lack thereof. As a consequence, her notability as a politician is not properly established. Further, because the bulk of the sourcing is sitting on a drunk driving charge, she also has to be weighed against both WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E — and she doesn't really get past those rules either. Finally, if I go back to the original creation of this article in 2009, according to his edit summary the creator seems to have acted specifically because of the drunk driving incident (and the editor has been chided more than once in the past for having a major WP:NPOV problem when it comes to Vancouver municipal politics, to boot.) All of which, in a nutshell, means this has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NPOL is irrelevant here, since she is not famous as a politician and the section "Politics" is completely unsourced. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, NPOL isn't "irrelevant" per se — since the article does claim that she holds a political office, it does have to be measured against that yardstick. You're correct that she doesn't pass the NPOL test, due to the lack of sourcing and the inherent non-notability of the office itself, but the NPOL test does count toward whether she qualifies for an article or not and thus isn't "irrelevant". Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass GNG. She is not notable as an actress, her roles were extremely minor, she is not notable as a politician, no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - besides the horrendous BLP violations, this person is just not notable. Her acting resume is light. We have deleted or merged the articles of municipal board members who were arguably much more famous; see,e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 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 redirect to 2015 Cricket World Cup. Jenks24 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage[edit]

2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fairly useless article until the actual tournament starts next year. Between now and then it's just basically an empty template. Very much falls into WP:CRYSTAL. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's really just a bad case of WP:NOTNOW. It could be an article later, though. EMachine03 (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per EMachine03: this article is useless until the World Cup gets underway and some content can be added Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNOW. Contesting of Speedy Delete and Prod by article creator was without rationale and seems a case of "don't delete my article". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or redirect) Actually, it meets WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Looking at the edit history of a similar article would suggest redirecting it to the main article for now. An even better example shows it was created about eight months before the tournament started without issue. I see no reason to delete this, esp. as it's only a few months away. If it was towards the end of next year (or later), then I might go down the delete route. I don't know why people are citing the guideline WP:NOTNOW either - have any of you actually read that page? It's to do with request for adminship! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "2011 Cricket World Cup knockout stage shows it was created about eight months before the tournament started without issue but the 2007 Cricket World Cup Super Eight stage was created on the day before it started. You see that WP:Other stuff exists, but we need to follow the guidelines rather than haggle over precedents pro or contra. People who cite NOTNOW probably confused it with WP:TOOSOON, which says "While there are topics that might arguably merit an article, sometimes it is simply too soon" Actually NOTNOW has a header that alerts users not to confuse the two, but... The special criteria listed at TOOSOON do not include sports events, though. IMO articles which describe stages of major sports events should only be branched out as soon as there is actually info available, before that the event with all its stages is covered by the parent article. Kraxler (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2015 Cricket World Cup for now. Too early for an article on this, obviously, but we might as well keep the template around in the history until such time as the tournament starts. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to which bit of WP:CRYSTAL this warrants deletion? Surely you don't mean the part I've quoted above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or, as a second choice, redirect. It is a notable, confirmed and scheduled event, so the terms of WP:CRYSTAL don't apply. And there's surely little harm in an article that demonstrates how the phase of the tournament will work, before it starts. Having said that, no great objection to a redirect either. While the article isn't doing any harm, nor is it doing much good. A redirect will at least keep the material there for future use. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Once the knockout stage starts/teams are known it can be recreated. Kante4 (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - premature but it will be needed in due course so I see no reason to destroy work that can be built on when the time comes. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:00, 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 merge to Old Dominion Monarchs baseball seasons, or some similar title. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Old Dominion Monarchs baseball team[edit]

2010 Old Dominion Monarchs baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability standards per WP:NSEASONS, completely unreferenced Asdklf; (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Article now has two sources, one primary and one independent Asdklf; (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Non-notable single season of mid-tier college baseball program. Fails WP:NSEASONS: this is not an elite program with wide coverage in the national sports media, and the team did not win a national championship or even a conference championship. By long-standing precedent, if individual seasons of a given college sports team do not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NSEASON, or the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, then such seasons may be combined into a single article by decade or other logical grouping. Here, there exist season articles for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, none of which are particularly noteworthy, and none of which satisfy WP:NSEASONS. In my estimation, they should be combined into single decade article: Old Dominion Monarchs baseball, 2010–14. If a merge is opposed, then these five individual season articles should be deleted outright. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with other years per Dirtlawyer1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball/Notability#Single seasons. Billcasey905 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Dirtlawyer1 and Billcasey. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:55, 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 merge to Old Dominion Monarchs baseball seasons, or some similar title. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Old Dominion Monarchs baseball team[edit]

2010 Old Dominion Monarchs baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability standards per WP:NSEASONS, completely unreferenced Asdklf; (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Article now has two sources, one primary and one independent Asdklf; (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Non-notable single season of mid-tier college baseball program. Fails WP:NSEASONS: this is not an elite program with wide coverage in the national sports media, and the team did not win a national championship or even a conference championship. By long-standing precedent, if individual seasons of a given college sports team do not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NSEASON, or the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, then such seasons may be combined into a single article by decade or other logical grouping. Here, there exist season articles for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, none of which are particularly noteworthy, and none of which satisfy WP:NSEASONS. In my estimation, they should be combined into single decade article: Old Dominion Monarchs baseball, 2010–14. If a merge is opposed, then these five individual season articles should be deleted outright. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with other years per Dirtlawyer1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball/Notability#Single seasons. Billcasey905 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Dirtlawyer1 and Billcasey. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:55, 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 delete. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 22:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comodo Antivirus[edit]

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

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

A very badly written content fork of Comodo Internet Security with ad hoc copy and paste of contents, which is copyright violation. ("Comodo Antivirus" and "Comodo Internet Security" are two different brands for the same thing. Advertising tactics, you know.) Codename Lisa (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It might look like a a content fork, but the news article thing can be fixed. Also, you can get the antivirus by itself^[1] on their website.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMachine03 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Not true. The link ultimately gives a copy of CIS. Also, if you want to fix anything, fix the original article. Content forks are deleted. Best regards, 03:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per OP. There is no reason for this content fork to be a separate article. --Larry (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons stated by the op. There is not a single citation in the document itself and the reference list is wholey inadequite.--Klingon1956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.208.201 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, on the condition they improve the sourcing". Comodo's Antivirus first became noteworthy as a standalone product and many continue to use it as such. However, the writing and sourcing must be improved. UKAmerican — Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per OP. There is no reason for this content fork to be a separate article. --Simon the Palmbeachguy
• Delete the page is being edited from an IP address in Chinai India where comodo has an office. Everything that has been put on the page reeks of bias and is unsupported by references --Simon the Palmbeachguy
  • I am a big fan of Comodo security, but Palmbeachguy is right. I am very disappointed in Comodod for this. None of the other pages for Comodo resemble this. Horrible attempt to introduce a page. If this was by somebody inside Comodo they should be fired. --User:klingon1956 — Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 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 delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Kell[edit]

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

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding WP:NHOCKEY, I am not sure he fails #3 because I don't know which of his games to count or what to make of his CHL honors. If only his AHL games count toward 200, then he should be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. According to WP:NHOCKEY/LA the ECHL does not count toward criteria 3. Also lacks the coverage required to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. Not a good sign when your biggest claim to fame is finishing second in an online poll of "most underrated player". Resolute 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG and WP:NHOCKEY as only his AHL games would count toward the 200 games. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:36, 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. Closed this early as Google brings up alot of sources so thus notability is there, All in all A clear keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swakopmund Railway Station[edit]

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

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

No evidence that this meets WP:GNG; neither reference appears to be reliable. Launchballer 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Idiotic nomination. It's basic common sense that this meets GNG. The main railway station of a major town. Did you bother to look in google books or Namibian newspapers?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep have to agree with Dr. Blofeld on this one, this station is part of a major transport service in the country. Theirs also a good history with this station as it's also serves as a major tourism hub for the country. --///EuroCarGT 21:32, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Florio[edit]

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

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are substantive articles which mention the subject in sufficient detail to pass the GNG in both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Roanoke Times. The Post-Gazette article stipulates that Florio was the ECHL's all-time career leader in games played, and the Virginian-Pilot article states that Florio was named in 1997 as Second Team all-time, which meet Criterion #4 of NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 21:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep after Ravenswing's edits. Long career and all-time ECHL leader in games played makes him very notable. bbx (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would have been a convinced and committed "delete" vote, but for the four footnotes added by Ravenswing: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article and the three articles from the Roanoke Times. Please note that the coverage is better than WP:ROUTINE in each of these four articles, but since three of them are from the same newspaper we really only have TWO independent, reliable sources to support the subject's notability per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. That's the absolute bare minimum by any standard, and subject to questioning as to the depth and significance of the coverage. In this case, the subject skates by -- barely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Definitely a good idea to keep, especially considering Ravenswing's revisions.Sadads (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ravenswing. Meets WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ravenswing. Definitely notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:34, 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 02:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Ross (British Army officer)[edit]

Donald Ross (British Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod, not sufficiently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The post of Lord Lieutenant is an honorary one with no political power, and there is no consensus that holders of this post are inherently notable. Colonel is below the rank which would make him inherently notable (see WP:SOLDIER) and OBEs are ten a penny. There was a comparable discussion about his predecessor Donald Hardie, but it was decided that he was notable mainly because he had held the rank of Brigadier which is inherently notable, but also because he had held the more important honour of CVO. PatGallacher (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. About the only thing I could find about Ross is his reminiscences about the regimental mascot, which gives a two-line biography (of him, not the mascot). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. His posts do not confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet GNG or SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:31, 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. Michig (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benn Steil[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:COI, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Puff piece article, by user User:Fadesga, who also created the article for the book. The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order scope_creep 17:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am still editing this article. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications) and #C8 (founding editor of a notable journal). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable on grounds of being an editor-in-chief.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient coverage in secondary sources, passes WP:Prof --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 03:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is not a "puff piece." there is no COI. it describes his credentials & summarizes one of his arguments in a sentence. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:PROF. I can't see COI issue. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:59, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Munnerlyn[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to be notable per WP:NGRIDIRON Connormah (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Non-notable "college" football player. Not entitled to a presumption of notability under WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON because he never won a major college sports award and never played a down in a regular season game in a top-tier pro football league. Fails the general notability guidelines for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. This is an example of an article stitched together from school newspapers (not "independent" sources), fansites, blogs and social media (not "reliable" sources), combined with WP:ROUTINE coverage from recruiting sites, NFL draft evaluation sites, and the mainstream media. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable under NGRIDIRON. Quis separabit? 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:38, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Siyaka[edit]

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

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

Article's subject may meet WP:NSPORTS but does not appear to meet the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. Lacks multiple, independent, reliable, and especially non-trivial references. KDS4444^Talk 16:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving to meet WP:GNG. We traditionally allow a grace period, especially for younger players. Has nominator tried searching for native-language sources? GiantSnowman 09:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY, current consensus for young players is that is sufficient. Needs expanding by a native speaker not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while Siyaka has made two substitute's appearances in the fully-pro league, I cannot find any Russian, Belarusian or English language sources that would be significant coverage. Let's use common sense here - even though this might be slightly over the NFOOTBALL presumed notability line, I don't see any evidence that the article could satisfy the GNG unless he does something significant (which violates CRYSTAL). Jogurney (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:NFOOTY. Here's some media coverage: Siyaka promoted to Dnepr's senior team, This year's most promising young players of the league - BlameRuiner (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw a similar article about his promotion to the senior team, and it is just routine coverage. The feature in Tribuna is not routine, but it contains very little information. If there was something else I might agree on passing the GNG, but I don't think the article can until Siyaka actually does something notable. Jogurney (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:GNG is guideline, not policy. That's why we have other guidelines such as NFOOTBALL, to help us determine special situations. Since whether or not this meets NFOOTBALL isn't up for debate, this seems clear to me. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John F. McNerney[edit]

John F. McNerney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable musician who fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. The references used are mostly memorials or related to the subject; the two potentially valid sources cited are AllMusic and Billboard, but neither site turns up a result. PROD by Gbawden and contested by SwishFanUSA, who later blanked the article and proposed it for deletion as WP:G7, a criteria which doesn't apply as he/she isn't the page's author. (DGG reverted his/her edit.) JSFarman (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested to JSF that he bring this here, as he had tried to deal with the problems against apparent opposition. I can't attempt to judge notability in this subject, but this clearly is not a suitable article as it stands. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've declined another speedy on it, as it's not a user request case unless SwishFan proves he's the creating account as well. I can see a sad story, but no real notability in it. A tragedy in childhood, a mysterious (seemingly unreferenced and subject to a gag order) legal matter, a not very successful career, a broken romance, and a drugs death. Could be the base for a plot for a film either with big names in it for the popular market, or with unknowns for the art market. But it isn't. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - probably a hoax, created by a sock. Non-notable otherwise. PhilKnight (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 as having been created by a member of this sock farm. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 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 speedy delete. As WP:CSD#A11 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meta index image[edit]

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

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

Article on some non-notable metadata coding written by the developer of this code. Author admits self-promotion on article talk page. Article has already been G11-speedied once, taking to AfD because the current version didn't seen quite blatant enough to tag it as such again, didn't seem to quite fit into an A7 category, and figured author would immediately revert a prod tag. --Finngall ^talk 16:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - From looking around the developer us using Wikipedia to assist in drumming up money to develop it as it's in kickstarter and another "give me money to make/develop this". Fails WP:N and WP:RS - Pmedema (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The linked articles don't really give any information about this idea, and it hasn't been funded. yet by Kickstarter. Frmorrison (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability, purely promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - per WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:MADEUPONEDAY, as well as the obvious WP:PROMOTION. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously. Per nom. and prior comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:58, 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 redirect to List of Kung Fu Panda characters. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tigress (Kung Fu Panda)[edit]

Tigress (Kung Fu Panda) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is copy of an entry in List of Kung Fu Panda characters with very little addition. It belongs in the List rather than a stand alone article. For reference please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shifu – Peter Rehse (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. I am persuaded by the reasoning found in the "Shifu" precedent cited by User:PRehse above. — Jaydiem (talk) 05:17, 15 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) 15:31, 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, j⚛e decker^talk 15:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – per Jaydiem. United States Man (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as said by Jaydiem. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect as above MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:37, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Davies[edit]

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

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

no clear notability as author, editor, or publisher DGG ( talk ) 11:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, though I agree with the nominator that the article was very weak. However, I've found a number of reviews of her books, including several for her second fiction book, Lily the Silent. In my view meets the minimum for WP:CREATIVE and shows Davies is having some proven impact. Sionk (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 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) 15:28, 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, j⚛e decker^talk 15:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think the sources currently in the article are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:33, 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 redirect to Jonas Brothers#Concert Tour. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers Live in Concert World Tour 2010[edit]

Jonas Brothers Live in Concert World Tour 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reason to believe this tour was notable per WP:NCONCERT. There's a couple of references (some for an unfortunate incident which does not add to notability for the tour), but nothing substantial that discusses the tour in any kind of depth and suggests that it was an important thing, not just a promotion for an album. It's just another thing of some length that happened over a period of time, it's what pop musicians do. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jonas Brothers#Concert Tour Wow...how the heck did this attack page-like tone against Demi Lovato get through? 'Interned in a treatment center'?! Are you kidding me? That deserves a WP:TROUT. Otherwise this is an overstuffed article that hasn't stood the test of time for a group that no longer exists. Poorly sourced using shaky-cam fan video 'articles' for the general body, with the only thing actually sourced well being Lovato seeking treatment that belongs in an article besides this, this is a top-heavy article that deserves a one-sentence redirect to the group's main page. Nate • (chatter) 04:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nate, you're correct: I should have looked closer. I have removed it as a BLP violation and notified the editor who added it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 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, j⚛e decker^talk 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jonas Brothers#Concert Tour – per Nate. United States Man (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect as above MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:37, 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 delete. j⚛e decker^talk 02:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besik Dekanoidze[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a coherent counterargument. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:05, 27 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) 16:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:32, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirkir Glay[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Football player with minimal sourcing and no significant achievements. Additionally, he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another non-notable player for KF Tirana. He does have three appearances with a team, but it's a very weak source supporting it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 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. Once he makes an appearance for KF Tirana in the Albanian Superliga, he will then be deemed notable as it is a fully professional league. IJA (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:05, 27 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) 16:03, 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. Michig (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argjend Malaj[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not going to piggy-back all of the articles onto this AfD, but this is one of a number of articles started about KF Tirana footballers. The articles have several factors in common: no clear assertion of notability, no or weak sources, and editing by a small group of editors or one editor using multiple accounts. Sir Sputnik's nomination is spot on here: this person fails both WP:GNG and the specific notability guidelines for athletes. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 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. Once he makes an appearance for KF Tirana in the Albanian Superliga, he will then be deemed notable as it is a fully professional league.IJA (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:05, 27 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) 16:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY I am usually the one who creates the pages of Albanian footballers, but someone seems to have been messing around with KF Tirana's new signings which is a shame. I agree that this particular player does not meet the necessary conditions. I shall re-create this page with greater substance once he has a reasonable amount of first team games under his belt in the Albanian Superliga. Oltianruci (talk) 15:03, 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 Redirect to Qantas Flight 32. Michig (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard de Crespigny[edit]

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

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

WP:BIO1E CorrectKissinTime (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Qantas Flight 32, the WP:ONEEVENT for which he is known. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only does it lack any clear claim to significant notability, it is written in horribly uneven style.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Clarityfiend. de Crespigny is mildly well-known, but only in the context of this air accident. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Qantas Flight 32. De Crespigny also wrote a book about the same event that was modestly successful, but not enough that I think he'd meet WP:AUTHOR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:59, 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 both. Michig (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shota Kashia[edit]

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Rekhviashvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 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. IJA (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:05, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 02:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Gillespie[edit]

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

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

Actor who fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The only search results for him include his Twitter account, IMDB page, Facebook page, or Vimeo account (i.e. self-promotional pages that millions of non-notable people also have). Jrcla2 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. However I would point out that IMDb is not a promotional site like the others. It is an attempt to compile all the information on all actors in all films, which is not always reliable for some things, but it is not an indiscriminate creation of links to whoever wants to be there, people there have actually had some link to some film, but that alone does not make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:32, 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. Michig (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edem Rjaïbi[edit]

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

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

May meet criteria in WP:NSPORTS but fails to meet the more-basic requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 13:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. 212.118.232.206 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was called up to the Tunisian national football team, the link by Reuters says. He played in three matches of the national team, according to soccerway.com. VfB Stuttgart is interested in his services, according to http://www.sportal.de. And above all, he played in a notable and famous team in a fully professional African league. See also this, if you want to improve the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Individual has played for a team in a fully professional league and so passes. WP:NFOOTY. However, Vejvančický should check Soccerway again, as the player was merely an unused substitute for Tunisia and has not yet actually played. However, article needs expanding building on his international squad call up and his Tunisian Cup win would be a good starting point. The nominating editor would do well to inform other editors how this player fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oy, my mistake for which I apologize. Thank you for correcting me, Fenix down. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem! Also, soccerway indicates he has played in continental cup competition between two teams from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Professional footballer who passes the inclusion guidelines of WP:NFOOTY. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is notable as he has played in a fully professional football league. IJA (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With noted sources, clearly meets WP:GNG. Which we shouldn't be needing to check given he easily meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving and not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:04, 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. There is no point keeping this open. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz Afridi[edit]

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

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

While subject appears to meet the criteria of WP:NSPORTS, he does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Cannot identify multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial references. KDS4444^Talk 13:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The man has played Test cricket, never mind first-class cricket, and therefore meets requirements of WP:CRIN with something to spare. If you feel the article needs more citations, then tag it as such with "refimprove". Jack | ^{talk page} 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would add that ESPNcricinfo is an impeccable source for cricket data. However, I will add CricketArchive to the article too as further verification. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jack. —Zia Khan 15:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - possibly the worst ever cricket AfD ever! He's a Test cricketer, who played for his country in international matches at the highest level!!! Not to mention having a substantial domestic first-class career! Easily meets WP:CRIN, WP:ATH, by extension WP:GNG. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:CRIN. Faizan 17:50, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahathir Azeman[edit]

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

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

Player has not played first team football in a fully professional league, nor senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No other achievements have garnered sufiicient significant reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. References given are purely to routine transfer activity or youth activity. Fenix down (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am aware I strongly voted keep for this player nearly a year ago, but to be honest, nothing has happened in his career since then of note, and I am now leaning more toward the delete votes in the previous discussion which suggest a lot of the coverage is routine. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The previous keep was at heart people looking at crystal balls and assuming he would come to cross a notability threshold. That has not happened, and this has become a classic example of why deletion discussions should focus on what has happened, not what we assume will happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 26 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. IJA (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:03, 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. Michig (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EWDraw[edit]

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

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

WP:DISCRIMINATE Sulaimandaud (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The software's features are not notable and it is "indiscriminate" information. Frmorrison (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Looks like it has Copy Violations. Regardless no real notable information anyways. -Pmedema (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously not notable and possibly copied from elsewhere. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteas simply copied off of some site. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete copy violations and not notable anyway --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 04:07, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SP Memorial Institute of Technology[edit]

SP Memorial Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a school with no assertion of its notability and no references to verify anything about it. KDS4444^Talk 11:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Recognised degree-awarding institution. I would like to correct you, this article is about a college located in Allahabad. Since the college offers recognized degree it is notable. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to return the favor: WP:PROF is a notability guideline for people, not institutions, and so does not apply here. The location of the college is irrelevant, as is whether or not it offers a particular kind of degree-- what matters is whether or not there are multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources which discuss the subject. If you or anyone could please provide some of these, that would be most helpful. KDS4444^Talk 16:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I don't like favors. I have corrected my post as well as article too, have a look. I think your AfD was wrong, it may be possible you were right just because of poor quality of the article.CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 17:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Verifiable college.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The college is notable.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an accredited degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 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. Michig (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FATA Cheetahs[edit]

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

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

Article does not assert how the subject is notable, and provides no references to material other than trivial mentions or score tables. Article needs multiple non-trivial references to, reliable, independent sources, and I do not see them for this team. KDS4444^Talk 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They play in a top-level domestic league, which would seem to me to pretty much confer automatic notability. The lack of sources is probably no more than a reflection of their status as a http://www.dawn.com/news/1084267 new team]. And there are sources out there (search for both Cheetahs and Cheetas). --Mkativerata (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Professional sports team which plays official Twenty20 matches and plays Twenty20 matches at the highest domestic level of Pakistani cricket. I've moved the article as the team name was spelt incorrectly. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable domestic team. Faizan 16:39, 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 speedy delete, no indication of notability. ... discospinster _talk 15:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiyavasu Bhadauria[edit]

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

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

Article has no evidence of subjects notability, all sources offered on talk page are of a primary nature. New editor with a particular interest in this article keeps removing the speedy, despite apparent failure of WP:GNG, forcing AFD. Dolescum (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, eligible for speedy deletion under WP:A7, no evidence of notability. Possible WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO issue. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 13:36, 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 sources in the article (and the ones provided in this discussion) do not seem to be convincing evidence of notability. Claims that Leffel has won the highest awards in his field are also not convincing. Consensus at this time seems clear that Leffel does not pass WP:GNG. The work that User:Ane wiki has done on this article is good, but unfortunately, no amount of good work can make someone notable when they aren't. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 01:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Leffel[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about Leffel in independent reliable sources. Sourcing is by him, primary or short quotes from him. None have any depth of coverage about him. A search found nothing better and found no good reviews of his books. Looking at WorldCat shows his most held book is at 191 libraries, a figure which from what I've read is small. There is lots of awards listed but none are major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Another voice to Delete. He has a paid editor working for him, User:Ane wiki - she disclosed, which is to be appreciated -- and I've given her a lot of directions on where she could look for evidence of notability. I don't think there's anything to be found, TBH, and the whole history of the page indicates extensive self-editing and sock-puppetry.AdventurousMe (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an odd target for deletion. The subject has repeatedly won the largest awards in travel writing today^[1], has written for the biggest and most respected travel writing and journalism outlets^[2], has multiple published books^[3], and speaks at the largest conferences in travel^[4]. This is a clear expert in the field, and a valuable entry for those looking to learn more. Page can be improved, but should not be deleted.--Andyopteris (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:Andyopteris is the third brand new account to have opposed the deletion of this page, edited by multiple single-purpose accounts including the subject's own, so far - there are two others on the article talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.148.191.133 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.90.102.110). All sources any of these accounts have cited are primary, not secondary. The primary link s/he cites to SATW lists a total of 80 winners in a single year and does not demonstrate any notability for these awards, particularly since it appears contestants enter themselves and pay a fee to do so - http://www.satwf.com/2014_SATW_Foundation_Lowell_Thomas_Travel_Journali/Categories; the primary link s/he cites to the conference does not demonstrate it's the largest conference in travel (surely there would be reliable secondary sources if this were the case?), and there are multiple speakers http://tbexcon.com/us/speakers/; neither the conference nor the awards have their own Wikipedia entry. Amazon reviews and a link to the subject's own website cannot establish notability. As per User:Duffbeerforme lacks any depth of coverage in independent reliable sources and does not meet WP:AUTHOR. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing pages on here for the past 4 years User:AdventurousMe. Feel free to disagree with my assessment, but please don't accuse me of sockpuppetry without doing the slightest research and looking at my contribs page. Lack of a Wikipedia entry does not indicate lack of significance: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and our dear Wikipedia is far from comprehensive. Many of the most prestigious awards are self-nominated and then judged—no one would say that process, nor the number of awards, somehow makes the Cannes Lions less prestigious. My main point here is that a simple cleanup with better sources would improve this page, but little is served by its deletion.--Andyopteris (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huge apologies, User:Andyopteris. I clicked the wrong contributions page, which pulled up only your contribution to that page. I'd agree that if better sources can be found, the page should be kept - but better sources have not been produced as yet. At the moment, like your own Wikipedia page, which I note has also been deleted, he's failing WP:AUTHOR because of primary sources and lack of depth of coverage. If anyone can provide strong sources - and the subject has a paid editor working for him looking for them -- then it would move to a keep. I'd suggest, if you're arguing to keep, that you find reliable secondary sources attesting to notability, and the relevance of the awards. AdventurousMe (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:AdventurousMe-I was all for deletion of the page about me (but oddly flattered that an editor that had previously worked on "baldness" and "erectile dysfunction" has also chosen me as a worthy topic). Anyhow, secondary sources shouldn't be difficult to find here, and I'll look into why SATW, NATJA, and TBEX don't have their own pages along the lines of British Guild of Travel Writers. My concern is that these standards as applied here would eliminate essentially all modern travel writers, which goes against the spirit if not the letter of the rule.--Andyopteris (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine User:Andyopteris! Mercifully, I'm in no danger of getting my own page. I guess the query here is in what form he's notable: because to me it seems as though he's not a notable journalist (50-odd articles on not particularly amazing outlets, and I'm sure he'd not hit the criteria over at the Journalism working project), and his books aren't particularly notable, certainly not by the standards applied to book authors in other sectors. Is he really *that* notable in the new media landscape - as a blogger? If so, I'd expect him to have some depth of coverage. It really doesn't help that he's been editing his own page, and there's several single-purpose accounts that have also worked on the page and that page only, and now has a paid editor working for him. He seems to me to be a reasonably successful working travel writer - not a super-star, a best-seller, someone who's transformed the landscape, or built a particularly significant body of work, but someone who's currently doing OK -- and not someone who'd have his own Wikipedia page in the normal scheme of things. I guess the concern here is that if for every industry we featured people who were doing relatively well, Wikipedia would be over-run with more-or-less obscure BLPs, and that's why the policy on depth of coverage in reliable sources exists. But I'd welcome clarification on this: on what, particularly, makes him notable. Do look into SATW, NATJA and TBEX as well. If you've got reliable secondary sources on them, they might well deserve their own articles. AdventurousMe (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is. If new sources are found during this discussion we may change our minds. If better sources appear after deletion there will be a voluntary to write this article again. WP is over its topics. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi. Please, if this is not the place for this comment, let me know and I'll move to the talk page. I understand the points explained - very patiently - by AdventurousMe in the talk page, but.. what makes someone "notable" in the world of travel writers? There are individuals who make a great contribution to his profession but not to the point of having a direct mention in NY Times, and still are big influencers. The fact of being widely quoted, as is the case of TL, does not speak about his reputation? In fact, I'm not sure if we can apply the same standards of "notability" for a novelist, a journalist or a travel writer; every profession have a set of media who are authorities in the field, they may not have the significance of other media, but they are reliable media in the sector. When these other media will begin to be reliable for Wikipedia?. AdventurousMe said on the talk page: "US News saying TL won a NATJA award is a great secondary source, because it demonstrates that both the awards and TL are noteworthy, and is secondary, not primary. NATJA saying TL won an award is primary and, frankly, fairly trivial".. NATJA is the highest award you can receive as a travel writer, but only exists if it appears in US News?. I have introduced new links in the article.--Ane wiki (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but with expansion. As mentioned by Andyopteris above, the subject has been the recipient of a significant award or honor in his field,^[5] which would seem to meet Criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore, citations in US News, USA Today Travel, CBS News, Reuters, Travel + Leisure and Newsweek indicate that he has created a collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (Criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR), or, when journalism awards are considered alongside the citations, "regarded as an important figure by peers" (Criterion 1 of WP:AUTHOR). That said, the above mentioned citations ought to be expanded or paraphrased in the article text, rather than just listed. Nmillerche (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd be more persuaded that these awards were significant if anyone could provide a secondary source to them: they're open only to members of a specific organisation, they give out 80 a year to around 1500 entrants, and I can't find any secondary sources testifying to their relevance, and none has yet been cited here. Whereas if I Google Thomas Cook Travel Book Awards, or Dolman Travel Book Awards, I pull up a tonne of reliable secondary sources as to who's won. That shows that the Thomas Cook Travel Book Awards are notable, the Dolman Travel Book Awards are notable, and it suggests that these SATW awards are not the highest awards in travel writing, or they'd get more coverage.

I also think there's a significant difference between being asked to quote for an article on what luggage to buy - the US News piece, which interviewed four people on luggage - and being the *subject* of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. These aren't making him the subject of their pieces. They're pieces about something else which cite the person. Newspapers do grab a lot of quotes from people: it's how they operate. If there was a piece that, for example, testified to his date of birth and education, as you'd expect in a piece that had him as the subject, that would be evidence of notability. If there were multiple reviews of his books in reliable secondary sources, again, that would lean towards a keep.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more quotes of TL in major media, which I did not include in the article.--Ane wiki (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment SATW awards have good coverage in reliable media, I just uploaded the list on the talk page. And something more: going to the extreme, reality TV participants are more likely to be considered "notable" than an author with books in print because reliable media have talked about them and their lives, even though they haven't done anything notable? I know it does not work that way, but with an example taken to the extreme, we can think if the "notability" criteria may not be as dependent on the media coverage, and more dependent of the subject´s history.--Ane wiki (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm glad we've given up the idea that these are the single most important awards in travel writing. If you can find a reliable secondary source saying that he's won one of the awards that are listed, that would really help support the idea that he is himself notable. As a paid editor, User:Ane Wiki I don't think this is the place to argue for overturning WP:AUTHOR and WP:V because the man who is paying you to argue his case doesn't seem to fit: there are all sorts of reliable niche sources for writers which cover writers extensively (New York Review of Books, Creative Review, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, etc) while a myriad mainstream publications run book reviews, travel book round-ups, books of the year, their own book awards, their own blog awards, etc.etc. Genuinely notable authors are not short of reliable coverage, though they may not attract the volume of coverage that celebrities do. AdventurousMe (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He does exist, as seen here^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanedit (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment AdventurousMe if you see - through the links - that the SATW award is important, and if TL appears in the official website of the award as a winner, what other evidence is needed? And something about me as a paid editor: the subject of the article paid me for adapt this article to Wikipedia standards; and if I took the job is because I thought there was significant coverage in reliable media to meet the requirements, obviously, for a traveler writer. You mention the "New York Review of Books," but in my opinion, you are equating travel writers with traditional writers, and they can not be handled with the same standards. I also think that we should be commenting this on the talk page, but I wanted to expose my opinion here.--Ane wiki (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Ane Wiki the article is tagged for primary sources and notability. Using reliable secondary sources, with good depth of coverage, is key to establishing notability in BLPs. This is why the nomination for deletion says: "Not notable. Lacks coverage about Leffel in independent reliable sources. Sourcing is by him, primary or short quotes from him. None have any depth of coverage about him." So that's what you need to find: independent, reliable, secondary sources with a good depth of coverage. If someone notable wins a notable award, that should be reported somewhere that's not the awards website. If someone's notable, there'll be profiles on reliable sources covering their early life. That's what you should be looking for. If you've found this significant coverage of him in reliable media, please do add it to the article. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a few comments.

"The subject has repeatedly won the largest awards in travel writing today". The link supplied does not show this. It shows a single year, nothing repeating. It also shows he did not win the largest award, that was won by Mary Jo McConahay. Also above Leffel in the main category was Genevieve Shaw Brown, Kerri Westenberg, Ellen Creager and Jill Schensul. SATW awards may claim to be the "premier competition" but does anyone independent back this up.

SATW awards are a pay for play award with a maximum prize of $1,500. Not a major awards. The large number they give out also dilutes the significance of individual category awards.

These awards, or the NAJTA awards may be up in the heirachy of awards specifically targeted at North American travel writers (a subset of writers is one region) but they are not the highest awards available to travel writers. They are eligible to win open writing awards.

The SATW award coverage shown at Talk:Tim Leffel is very underwhelming. Short blogs promoting a few of the winners and some listings. Not enogh to make the awards themself notable, even less so for someone not mentioned in any of these sources

Nmillerche claims Leffel's work "has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Where are these articles or reviews.

"you are equating travel writers with traditional writers, and they can not be handled with the same standards." They are handled with the same standards. Travel writers are not given special treatment. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The subject has repeatedly won the largest awards in travel writing today" refers not only to the SATW, as shown in the article. And in that link we can see that Leffel won one of the categories of Lowell Thomas award.

And when I say "you are equating travel writers with traditional writers, and they can not be handled with the same standards" I'm not asking for special treatment. I am indicating that travel writers do not get the same treatment in the major media, and that it should be taken into account.. With very few exceptions, the most important traveler writers only have extensive coverage in online media and pages that started as self published and now have a remarkable reputation within the genre. That's what I mean: travel writers will never have an award like the Pulitzer, and perhaps the USA Today will never make them an interview. So it seems that in regard to travel writers, no award is important, no website is important just because they are not mentioned in major media, that generally do not deal with travel writers; they only quote them in some articles - as in the case of Leffel. So in this context, the quotes do not matter? I know that every day hundreds of writers are quoted in hundreds of articles and they don´t deserve an article in Wikipedia. But if you have quotes, work, books, awards, that should make a difference.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not the case. Travel writers can win the Feature Article section of the Pulitzer, or any of a myriad notable, established book and journalism awards, not to mention scholarships, fellowships, etc: they can be the subject of profiles and articles, cf Jan Morris, Bruce Chatwin, Paul Theroux. There are all sorts of niche awards for industry writers in one country: that doesn't make people who've won them notable, otherwise we'd be submitting everyone who's won (eg) a tech journalism award for Australia & New Zealand, or a Sports Writing awards for the UK. Self-published books, which these appear to be, don't carry significant weight unless they're the rare breakthrough self-published success that attracts significant coverage and hits bestseller lists. You've so far failed to demonstrate WP:AUTHOR: there's still not one secondary source listed. Please stop arguing for special treatment on the grounds that he's a travel writer: he needs to hit the same standards as any other creative in any sector. Or, if you do think travel writers should be treated differently, and you have a reasoned argument for this, take it up on the discussion pages for the relevant community standards. Please disclose your affiliation first, though. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every genre has his own awards. Being at the top of your field means being recognized by these genre awards as you are being compared to others writing in the same genre. You tell me that the top writers of each genre does not deserve to be in Wikipedia, unless they win the Feature Article section of the Pulitzer or a general award. As we commented on talk page, with these standards, almost no travel writer (or other genre writer) is going to be "notable" and admins will have to check 200 travel writers pages.--Ane wiki (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're wilfully misunderstanding. If you want to rewrite Wikipedia's community standards to include your client, I suggest you go to the relevant pages and discuss the issue on the talkboard there, disclosing first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) And, yes, very few travel writers are notable.AdventurousMe (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not trying to rewrite the rules. Simply, I think that in addition to the awards - discussed or not - and the notability - or not - of the people who write about TL, dozens of mentions and quotes in various articles on reliable media could indicate that an author is notable, even though these articles are not about him. And these are not only quotes of Leffel´s books, they also talk about him - whether they are short commentaries, they´re signs that the writer is an authorized voice and a reference -. Then we can discuss, as we are doing, if is applicable, but please do not say that I am wilfully misunderstanding.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In talk page, AdventurousMe started new sections for any editor who wishes to list sources. In this place I am adding sources, and trying to demonstrate the notability of the people who wrote about TL.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:51, 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 no consensus. The subject's notability is borderline, no clear consensus seemed to arise one way or the other. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 01:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor Gadon[edit]

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

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

This article fails general notability guidelines. Articles are supposed to have multiple, indepth, independent sources. We have one, in-depth source that comes from Gadon's employer and is not clearly independent. She also seems to not meet any of the guidelines for inclusion of academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Little to no coverage in independent reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 17:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article did fail notability guidelines but has since been improved with numerous reliable references. Subject is a notable art history scholar who is widely quoted by other historians and easily meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 1 August 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) 06:59, 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) 10:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending other improvements to the article. At the moment, these are not significant, in-depth coverage, just evidence that she's published some articles and is an art historian - not that she's a notable one. AdventurousMe (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. GS h-index of 4. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Obviously of interest in academia considering the various refs. Put a "more refs needed" tag on it. If she was a male historian with that many refs I doubt she'd be considered for AfD at all. Let's be inclusionist here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to her employer's profile of her, she has a single book to her name, The Once and Future Goddess. It is quite well-cited on Google scholar (over 250 citations) but I could not find enough (or any) reliably published mainstream-media reviews to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR, I don't think the one publication is enough for WP:PROF#C1, and no other sign of notability is evident. I think all of the references in the article are actually citations to her book, and are passing mentions rather than being in-depth reviews of the book. In addition, with all notability being through the book, WP:BIO1E is also relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - impressive resume, seems like someone I'd like to know more about. Personal interest isn't reason to keep, but it seems like there should be references available to show her notability at least within her particular field. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did more exploring and I think there are other aspects here that possibly might be brought out. First, Gadon is a western scholar who is into Eastern religion, which generally is not well understood by western thinkers and not much respected by the academic establishment; to some extent, Gadon links two continents, West and East, and the mix is sometimes difficult. Hinduism is somewhat related to astrology which causes some of us western-oriented science-types (like myself) to not give much credence or respect. This is somewhat the case with feminism (a related area: Gadon's work is related to feminist-oriented takes on Eastern religion and she is somewhat of an activist) too, and it can get kind of weird, when Stonehenge is sometimes interpreted as being symbolic of a vagina, that Eastern-type mysticism is not well understood, and Wikipedian contributors tend (90%+) to be male (like myself). So I think we need to be open-minded. Her book The Once and Future Goddess has had a big impact in the feminist/spiritualist/Eastern-oriented religion communities. She is acknowledged as an authority in lectures, in programming, and she was a prominent speaker at the Indira Gandhi National Center for the Arts in 2005. The Los Angeles Times thinks she is wise but what do they know. Gadon is the type of person who I would love to find myself sitting next to on a long train ride, and to query her about all of her travels and beliefs, and discuss deep metaphysics and philosophy with, and maybe even debate about what life is all about. Not that that is a Wikipedia requirement for notability; just a-sayin'.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Forbes magazine mention makes her notable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than mentions are needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Many sources are more than mere mentions such as this review of her book, and this article in Forbes discusses Gadon's thinking at length. Plus there is a full review in the Examiner which one can find by copy-pasting the following string in the browser bar: "The book mixes facts, quotes and stories, and the opinions of the author. The facts are interesting but tend toward dry. Obviously, Ms. Gadon has made a huge effort to get every historical reference scrupulously correct." And the other sources which are a line or two suggest that EG is respected academically, with her works cited.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources now added to the article constitute significant coverage per WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In depth treatment is required. Not present here. A Wikipedia BLP requires substantial career achievement. Not apparent here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

As Tomwulcer has noted above, sources such as the Environmental Ethics book review and The Forbes article demonstrate far more than "trivial" coverage. See WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." There is no mention of "career achievement" in WP:BASIC 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those who beefed it up. I'm unwatching this discussion but watching the article so can get a chance to read it and follow interest links, just for fun :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24.151.10.165 Do you happen to know if there is a mirror of the Forbes article anywhere else? Every time I try to read it (to evaluate the claims made here that its coverage of the subject is nontrivial) I get redirected to Forbes' front page. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experiencing the redirection problem myself (Browser: Firefox) and do not know of a mirror site. As a stopgap, I'll post a slightly long excerpt from the two page article, outdented for readability. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(slimmed down per Tomwsulcer's advice re COPYVIO below) "I was recently introduced to Elinor Gadon’s spectacular treatise The Once and Future Goddess. It sits at my bedside table with an accompanying journal filled with notes. Goddess synthesizes archeological and anthropological research of the last half century to track the evolution of the feminine identity over the last 12,000 years, from the very earliest hunter-gatherers, to today’s still patriarchal society."

An additional source is this newspaper article Images Of Women In Art, Religion which draws on Gadon's work and travel in India to analyze developments in the study of female religious imagery. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I think this Women's Studies Quarterly article The Once and Future Heroine: Paleolithic Goddesses and Popular Imagination might be a very good reference but JSTOR only displays the first page. I believe we have some Wikipedians with JSTOR access, but I do not know how to contact them to ask if they can retrieve this. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Toledo Blade source to article, thanks. The Forbes citation I can read, but first there is an advertisement to skip. Last, we probably should not copy swaths of the Forbes article here on the talk page because of WP:COPYVIO maybe we should trim it substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does seem to me that similar coverage for a male scholar, or for a scholar in a different field, would have been a definite keep by this point. The various reviews of The Once and Future Goddess, surely count as solid coverage, as well as the Hindu article (The Hindu is one of India's oldest and best known newspapers). The nomination may have been warranted at the time; it has since been improved more than enough to keep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:38, 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 No consensus. Opinions are fairly evenly split between keeping and deletion, and as this has already been here for three weeks it seems unlikely that a further relist will change this. Michig (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Black[edit]

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

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

Non-notable college professor. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:PROF GrapedApe (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find cites on GS. Maybe somebody else can. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, a BLP with no references, reads very promotional. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. His book Petrolia has 51 Google scholar citations (the rest are in single digits when they're found at all), not enough for a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, but it does have some four published reviews: JSTOR 3594746 JSTOR 3985468 JSTOR 25147879 doi:10.1086/533300. I think that's not unusual for an academic book of this type, but if he had two books with this level of attention I might !vote keep. As it is, I think there's a WP:BIO1E problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- He has a significant published output. Being published by academic publishers suggests notability; as do his editorial appointments, some of which are not posts that non-entities get. His present post seems to be rather higher than head of a university department. That post would be held by a professor (with a chair), who would certainly be notable; so, surely, the holder of a higher level post is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in his CV rises to the level of any of the WP:PROF standards.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I have tagged the page for speedy deletion. First, because it is horrendously promotional and, second, that's not very surprising given that the text is either verbatim copied or slightly re-phrased from his own (also rather commercial and not very academic) website (here). --Randykitty (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have removed the promotionalism and the copyvio, and therefore removed the speedy tag. . The author of a CHOICE outstanding academic book is notable as an author--I'm adding the reference, and the rest is supported by his official CV. (As for WP:PROF, it depends on the reception of his books--there is no presumption of notability , as Penn State-Altoona is not a research university DGG ( talk )
  • But that CHOICE designation doesn't make the book notable, so how could it make the author notable?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:40, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. user:Randykitty and User:DGG did a good job in cutting out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It deeply concerns me that admins who should know better are !voting keep for an unreferenced BLP. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI very definitely feel that a CHOICE Outstanding Books designation : does indeed make the book notable. (and in turn having writing a notable book normally makes the author notable). And if I have the chance--I would love to demonstrate this by writing an article about every one of them and their authors. They only reason I hesitate is I've been one of their reviewers for years now, though of course I wouldn't write an article on a book I reviewed, no matter how good I said it was). It's a selective review journal in the first place--the policy is not to bother with books that are not recommended unless they are so bad it's necessary to call them to notice; and the selection for Outstanding are made not by us ordinary reviewers, but by their editorial staff, though obviously based on what we say in our reviews.
• Comment2 I do not understand what you mean by unreferenced; the significance of the book is demonstrated by the reviews; the routine noncontroversial aspects of the career by the official bio, unless there a reason for a bona fide challenge. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 21 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) 10:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What you call "routine noncontroversial aspects" are part of the body of the article, which typically are required to have in-line citations in a BLP. This article lacks any independent reliable citations about Black as a person. The reviews are about Petrolia, not Black. I'm not convinced that those reviews equate to Black making a major impact in his field. Not only is there no clear guidance on what a "CHOICE" designation is worth, we have no independent reliable sourcing to show that Crude Reality was awarded anything at all. A search of ACRL Choice reveals nothing about the book and the claim is that they handed out the award. I honestly can't understand the defense being mounted for this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' - no secondary sources attesting to his notability, just evidence he's a published academic, of which there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, around the world. Like User:Chris troutman I'm confused as to why this should stay. AdventurousMe (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence he passes the notability requirements for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of book reviews in academic journals, not just of Petrolia (cited in the article) but also Crude Reality: [5], [6], [7]. There's enough there to satisfy WP:GNG and probably WP:NACADEMICS #1. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources in the article and listed above. -- GreenC 02:00, 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 delete. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 01:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Lucre (band)[edit]

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

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

PROD removed without explanation. No sign of notability. Sole link on page goes to a non-existent page StuartDouglas (talk) 14:21, 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 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails GNG and BAND. No sources are currently cited. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Two apparently independently notable members means that we shouldn't just delete this as it is a plausible search term that should redirect somewhere with details on the band. Given the strong connection to L.A. Guns, perhaps that would be a suitable target to merge and redirect. If verifiability is concern, there are several book sources that discuss the band: [8], [9], [10]. --Michig (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment A redirect to LA Guns might be an idea, I'd say, but the links simply mention that the band was formed, which isn't really 'discussion' and doesn't establish any notability. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:48, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete -Fails WP:GNG, WP:Notability and WP:NBAND, so why are we debating this article? LOLCanyouhearmenow 14:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The preceding comment was posted by Canyouhearmenow who probably just forgot to sign. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately sometimes my keyboard sticks and I think it worked when it didnt. Thank you!Canyouhearmenow 14:02, 2 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. The arguments by the delete voters are substantially more convincing than the others. MQS comments that it meets WP:NF with no discussion of why or how. Tokyogirl79 and Frmorrison reference the single major review that the film received, but another editor reminds us that WP:NFILM requires full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Consensus is that the film is not notable, however there does appear to be some agreement that the organization by the same name might meet our notability guidelines. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 01:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Living Hope[edit]

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

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

I don't find evidence that this film has achieved note as called for under WP:NFILM. The third-party references that mention Living Hope refer to the ministry by the name "Living Hope" that the film is about but not to the film. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Film:(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)

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

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

• Weak keep per just meeting WP:NF for a secular documentary. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you clarify? I don't see any notes particularly pertinent to documentaries, secular or otherwise, in WP:NF, except in the non-germane criterion "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." Also, what's secular about this church-oriented documentary? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes? Documentaries are covered under WP:NF and not some separate guideline. My thought using common sense is that small budget, independent documentary films do not get the same level of coverage as their bigger, better funded, big studio produced brethren. Thus, when looking for sources, we do not have a realistic expectation of such being covered in New York Times or Variety. Being a Christian-related film, we would expect Christian-related coverage... coverage independent from the production itself but reliable enough for what is being sourced. I did not refer to the "other attributes to consider", and my "weak keep" is based upon that coverage being just barely enough to meet WP:NF. Not excessive, no... but non non-existent either. Just barely enough. And I chose "secular" as a descriptive because the film's story is associated with a Christian ministry but does not preach that faith's religious message. If I am mis-using that term, then excuse me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course I realize documentaries are covered under WP:NF. It's that instead of merely writing "just meeting WP:NF", you wrote "just meeting WP:NF for a secular documentary", as though you would have reached a different conclusion if it were a different kind of film. This led me to think you'd found something in WP:NF that gives additional leeway for secular documentaries.

As for "small budget, independent documentary films do not get the same level of coverage", isn't that sort of the same thing as saying that small budget, independent documentary films are less likely to meet WP:NF? In the same way that local garage bands are less likely to meet the guidelines under WP:BAND—we don't lower the bar for them, we delete them routinely—and not only do we delete them, but when it comes to bands we even delete them speedily. I haven't before come across the idea that we lower the bar for subjects that because of some characteristic are less likely to meet WP:N or one of its offspring than other subjects of the same type (in this case, a film) but without that characteristic (in this case, being a small, independent documentary). —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not speaking about the topic of neighborhood bands, just about a low-budget independent film that has just enough coverage to meet the intent and purpose of WP:NF. I am not "lowering the bar", but in considering the topic I am not holding it ridiculous heights either. Indeed, there are hundreds or thousands of indie docs that do not come even this close. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you weren't speaking of neighborhood bands. The nature of an analogy is to compare something that is the topic of discussion to something else. Anyway, can you please provide examples of this coverage? As I said in my nomination, I'm not finding it. TokyoGirl has provided just one example. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm leaning towards a weak keep as well. I've found a review by the Dove Foundation and while the coverage here is very, very light it's enough that so far I'm leaning towards a weak keep as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has a notable review. Frmorrison (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The review-based criterion from WP:NFILM is that "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."

• Delete: Copying my comment from the article's talk page: "[...] after excluding the results that were obviously connected to the ministry or the production company, it seems to me that the ministry Living Hope is borderline notable and sufficiently covered; the film Living Hope is much less so. More should be included in this article about the ministry, as it seems unlikely that the film achieves notability on its own." That comment was from just before the film was released, as I recall, but the article wasn't nominated for deletion at the time. I think that this could be an article on the ministry which mentions the video, but I don't think that the film itself satisfies WP:NFILM at this time. I'd expect a notable film with a Christian subject (secular or otherwise) to be well-covered by Christian media, and notwithstanding the one major review this film hasn't achieved that coverage. Ivanvector (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking that myself—the ministry might merit an article—and, of course, it could be mentioned in that article that this film had been made about it.—Largo Plazo (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- upon review this film fails WP:NFILM and fails WP:Notability all at the same time. I agree with Ivanvector that the film would at least have major coverage from the Christian market but has very little to none. Delete away!--Canyouhearmenow 12:40, 2 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. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 01:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Wise[edit]

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

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