< 28 July 30 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 deckertalk 02:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzog Bernhard Zoransky[edit]

Herzog Bernhard Zoransky (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)

Hoax (see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/29. Juli 2014#Bernhard Zoransky (SLA) for German discussion, ending with speedy deletion, after this Article was translated into German) Noebse (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedy deleted on the German Wikipedia.
The sources do not indicate this person had the title of a Herzog (duke). Indeed the google books uploaded (Philip Van Ness Myers (15 June 1893). Introduction to Prussian History: A Textbook for High Schools, Seminaries, and Colleges (German). Bender Books USA. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-4993-6557-3.

Kaspar, Johann Z. Die Zoransky Familie. ISBN 0692213872.) are selfpublished and the ISBN numbers do not suit the year of publication. --GDEA (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not support a hoax. It only supports lack of RS to support claims of importance. We should not accuse people of dishonesty because their sources do not support their claims. (However, as this is an English article, I think the English word "Duke" should be used. I thought Herzog was part of his name.) This is a very new article. Has anybody offered help to the creator, or tried to improve it as an alternative to deletion? I think this discussion is far too hasty, and a hoax (the reason given in this nomination for deletion) is certainly not supported by any evidence that I see, even if the sources do not say he was a herzog. Also, remember the discussion for the German article concerned only the German article, not this one, and it is not binding or conclusive evidence in itself. Notability has not been supported. Ok. But that does not mean the creator of this article lied or perpetrated a hoax. Dcs002 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain hints that this articles is a fake because of historial inaccuracies that should not occur in a reliable article. Herzog Bernhard Zoransky should have remained catholic during the Kulturkampf (1871-1878), although he died 1849, more than twenty years before.
The inline reference for the Kulturkampf, Frankenberg's Prussia: A Guide To Lost Prussian Nobility by Franz W Frankenberg. Published 1858, is dated 13 years before the Kulturkampf happened. It is very short book because it only contains 36 page.
The book is self-published under the platform reatespace.com of amazon.com. Nobody checks whether this book is an authentic reprint of a historic book or pure invention.
One book which is given as source in this article, "Johann Wilhelm: Herzog Martin V. Zoransky has got an "ISBN 1499310390" and is claimed to be published in Germany in 1918. There neither an entry for this book nor for the author, the ISBN or Zoransky in online catalogue of the German National Library, which collects all books having been published in Germany. The precessor for the "ISBN", the "SBN"-number was introduced in 1966, the ISBN in 1970. --GDEA (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also take into consideration Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. --Noebse (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this looks very suspicious. The case has not yet been proven, but from multiple angles, it looks suspicious. But this AfD must be evaluated through this process on its own, as the falsehood of sources and the accusation of sockpuppetry are allegations, not proven, and we are not admins who can impose sanctions for such things. We are here to evaluate this article as an AfD. The reason given is "hoax," and that is not a reason for AfD, but for speedy-deletion. I doubt the subject is notable though, and that would be a reason to delete under this process. Dcs002 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for details please check my reasoning on Herzog Martin V. Zoransky below, that basically applies to all Zoranskies. All Zoransky-articles are cross-related to each other, the relevance of each article in terms of the encyclopedia was based on the argument that one Zoransky was rfelated to another Zoransky, who was allegedly nobility (Martin V. Zoransky), but the given documents were a hoax and made up. In case of a later Zoransky (forgot which one ... apparentlie died in 1988) his relevance was based on the claim that his ancestor (Martin V. Zoransky) was Prussian nobility, but there was no proof of that. Also he was apparently the grandfather of T.S. Threston, and was meant to be relevant because of that, but T.S. Threston herself does not show as much to justify a biographicle article. All those articles, including all on the Threston family and the Zoranskies, had been initiated by a number of accounts that had been established in July 2014 and were only working on those articles related to Threstons and Zoranskies. All those accounts are currently undergoing an inquiry regarding the suspicion of sockpuppetry. Also the Coat of Arms of the Zoransky Family that has been uploaded to Wiki-Commons is facing an AfD right now. LagondaDK (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sockpuppet investigation is in progress, but it has not come to a conclusion. I see many suspicious coincidences, but what is lacking is anything beyond the coincidences - the timing and the use of those accounts - to indicate a nefarious motive. Allegations and investigation for sockpuppetry do not constitute evidence of sockpuppetry. (Lack of RS does not establish motive either.) Nothing is yet conclusive except the German deletion, and that was about the German article. I think we should delete this article for a more clearly substantiated reason, like lack of notability, or even criterion #7 in WP:DEL#REASON, part of the deletion policy. (It could be argued that a thorough attempt has been made to source the topic and found insufficient evidence.) I would support that, but I cannot support a conclusion that this is a hoax simply because others are investigating sockpuppetry, there is poor or even inappropriate sourcing, or a German article was deleted, speedy or otherwise. This discussion is about this article alone, and whether this article should be deleted because it is a hoax.
Embarrassing correction: I said "The reason given is "hoax," and that is not a reason for AfD, but for speedy-deletion." Hoax clearly IS a reason for deletion through this policy, regardless of the result of a speedy-deletion request. My bad! Dcs002 (talk) 05:30, 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 deckertalk 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Zoransky[edit]

Joseph C. Zoransky (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 person Noebse (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noebse, I don't like it when the only action someone has done on an article is nominating it for deletion, especially with no discussion on the article's talk page. The first action should be to try to help, not delete. WP:DEL-CONTENT says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." From what I can tell, the only contributions you have made here since 2012 has been to nominate pages for deletion or speedy-deletion. You have to know what that looks like.
Given the Herzog Bernhard Zoransky AfD discussion, I wonder if this might have more to do with a well intentioned editor who doesn't understand notability requirements. Suggesting that either article is a hoax is unwarranted as far as I can tell. But in the end, it seems this article is likely not about a notable subject, so delete. Dcs002 (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, but I do not like accounts which spam irrelevant articles by creating a walled garden. --Noebse (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to assume good faith at first, but from the German deletion discussion it seems that sources were actively faked. Also, this is part of a larger "walled garden" of articles, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dcs002 & Noebse: You are referring to User:GenieGeschichte when speaking about the "well intentioned editor who doesn't understand notability requirements"? It might look like that in this case, but considering the two other "Zoranskies" it seems evident to me, that the "History Genius" put a lot of effort to create a hoax to fool Wikipedia. No way, that that happened unintentionally!--Susumu at (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a hoax, but that is not our mission here. Hoaxes should be speedy-deleted by admins, not through this process. We can determine notability and whether the sources are sufficient, but calling the creator a liar is in itself an attack, and we should use all restraint. On its own, I think this article is about a non-notable subject. I think that is sufficient reason to delete. Dcs002 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for details please see my contributions to Bernhard Zoransky and Martin V. Zoransky AfD above and below. The resoning applies to all Zoransky articles. LagondaDK (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dcs002: Some IP suggested all three articles for speedy-deletion, but this was reverted by JohnCD, because it was a not to obvious hoax. But it is still a hoax. The German Afd-discussion proved this by all means. This "Contributer" faked (and uploaded to google-books) a self-published "German source" for "reference", in which he included a bad, babelfish-like German translation of his English WP-Articles. I think this is proof enough for bad intentions.--Susumu at (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments. I still don't think we are justified in calling this a hoax though. My standard for that is maybe higher than that of most people (though the admins who rejected the speedy-deletes seem to have a higher standard as well - it wasn't obvious to them, and if it's not obvious, I think we should refrain from such labels). However, my original !vote stands. In my first post in this discussion, I !voted to delete based on lack of notability (and no apparent claim of importance or significance), which is the reason given for this proposed deletion. I also see the main editors of the article haven't attempted to improve the article and haven't participated yet in this discussion. Dcs002 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand why a person would put so much effort into articles such as these, which are about minor nobles at best, as a hoax. No one is contesting whether the subjects of these articles were real, only the claimed nobility and the reliability of the sources. Sure, they could be the editor's ancestors, but that is a very weak motive for perpetrating an outright hoax. (No one accepts WP articles as a RS, not even WP.) It is a more reasonable motive for trying to get articles for non-notable subjects, but that is different from perpetrating an outright hoax. Dcs002 (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcs002: well, at first sight I just belived it was a try to make fun out of the wikipedia and descrediting it. There ARE people out there, who put some efford in it just for fun ore meniace. But after reading LagondaDK (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston it might as well be an infamouse try of Viral marketing to promote the book mentioned there! Consider what happens when medias go for the news "Wikipedia fooled by Novelist", it might get really profitable for the selling numbers of the book, can't it?--Susumu at (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discussions of sockpuppetry, decisions elsewhere about German articles... Maybe it's only my bad Google translation of the German article, but what I read there is still along the lines of "it makes sense that this is bogus" rather than "this is proven." I see nothing proven, but again, my !vote is to delete based on non-notability, and like WikiDan61says, maybe even speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#A7. We agree on deletion, maybe even speedy deletion, for the reason given in the nomination for deletion, but I do not want this to be a consensus that this was a hoax or sockpuppetry, which is being investigated elsewhere and outside the scope of our task here, IMO. I disagree that either has been substantiated here, and I don't see why it's necessary to expand this AfD discussion to include such allegations when they are not necessary or part of the proposed reasons for deletion. What does that serve? We seem to have enough to agree on a deletion under GNG and A7, and I think we should do so, and let the sockpuppetry investigation do its job. It looks like that's happening, but the investigation is not complete. I think the scope of our discussion should be limited to this article and whether it should be deleted for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion, and we all seem to be in agreement. Delete. Dcs002 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
about Maybe it's only my bad Google translation of the German article, but what I read there is still along the lines of "it makes sense that this is bogus" rather than "this is proven.": It was in the end generally considered proven, that it was fake. (I am a German native speaker, even if some people from Germany might disagree in that.) And it was ended there with SLA (=Schnelllöschantrag, equal to speedy-deletion). If you go on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, then klick on the "Deutsch" interwiki you will get conformation for that. Anyway, I think by now WP:snow should apply here.--Susumu (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did not know what SLA meant, though I did wonder. With the sockpuppetry case closed, I suppose this will all be over very quickly - all related pages. Dcs002 (talk) 11:06, 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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Mission School[edit]

Bethel Mission School (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)

advertising The Banner talk 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Just to clarify -- Are you the same new editor who !voted as an IP above, with the same remoteness concern? Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strike as per WP:AfD guidelines. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Of note is that the nominator changed their !vote (the nomination) to merge in a comment in the discussion. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Tubman Grave[edit]

Harriet Tubman Grave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this may meet WP:GNG as both sources are routine databases. Launchballer 23:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be withdrawing this. Not only would withdrawal have no effect due to the existence of non-keep votes (including one merge vote - see below), your statement that two sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG is, to my mind, complete bollocks since I have been discussed thoroughly in two sources and mentioned in others (see my userpage) and you will notice that, rightly or wrongly, I do not have an article. --Launchballer 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 01:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. Changing my vote, as nominator, to merge.--Launchballer 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 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. NPOL does not automatically make city councillors notable, not even from a big city like Manchester. In the absence of reliable sources going beyond a passing mention, notability has not been established. Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ashley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Simon Ashley (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 should be deleted. It was never anything more than a stub, and the subject isn't even a member of the council anymore since he lost his seat in 2011. Totally fails notability. 88.104.6.198 (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the third nomination — I don't know why "(3rd nomination)" is in the title of this page, because there hasn't been a "first" or "second" nomination at all. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 6 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:21, 6 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JR Digs[edit]

JR Digs (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)

Only one third-party source provided which appears to be a bunch of user-generated gibberish. Almost speedyable as an advert with with thin claims to fame. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve references. A quick Google search turned up significant coverage. See here, here, here, and here. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:28, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garduño's[edit]

Garduño's (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)

Almost everything among the sources here is a mere local directory entry, or a mention. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, you've been behind the vast majority of speedy deletion votes on New Mexican restaurants, WP:ITSLOCAL is not a reason for deletion. Being purchased after falling into Chapter 7? being featured in Breaking Bad? being listed as "Best Mexican Restaurant" in Las Vegas, Nevada, consecutively for 17 years? How are any of these "local directories"? And, none of these articles are mentions, the Breaking Bad article even goes into detail of what Garduño's is. In fact, in the words of the Albuquerque Journal, "One of New Mexico’s most famous restaurant chains received some national TV exposure". First sentence. Smile Lee (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage from multiple, reliable sources. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:32, 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 deckertalk 02:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzog Martin V. Zoransky[edit]

Herzog Martin V. Zoransky (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)

Hoax (see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/27. Juli 2014#Martin von Zoransky for German discussion, ending with speedy deletion, after this Article was translated into German) Susumu at (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax probably applies to all Articles in Category:Zoransky. They all had a speedy deletion request recently by the way, which was removed.--Susumu at (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think declining the speedy was the right call: this isn't within G3's ambit because it's insufficiently blatant. However, I think it would be appropriate to close this AfD early under WP:SNOW. I don't think it's possible to advance a plausible defence of the article now.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Polen[edit]

Benjamin Polen (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 person seams not notable. Google new search returns no hits [17]. Google Books has some results, probably not about this person, as some of those books are from 1930s and 1940s [18]. Article looks like an advertizement. Cited sources just mention or quote him, with no significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please google "benjamin polen real estate" and you will see relevant hits. He was quoted in a law review article certifying his expertise on real estate mortgages. http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2063/Issue%202/Marsh.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowanusgondolier (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 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 redirect to Toontown Online#Closure. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toontown Rewritten[edit]

Toontown Rewritten (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 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 deckertalk 02:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isnik Alimi[edit]

Isnik Alimi (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 player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He played for the Macedonian second league club, he signed for Chievo, but had not played a game yet. There are no reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 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) Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 09:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Baffler[edit]

The Baffler (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)

promo The Banner talk 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Andrew Walsh[edit]

Kenneth Andrew Walsh (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:BIO. Only source provided is self published. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:08, 29 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, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tycko[edit]

Robert Tycko (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)

Only reference provided is self-published. I couldn't find any other reliable sources covering the subject. Fails WP:BIO. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numeer Nabi[edit]

Numeer Nabi (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)

1. Notability is not established. 2. Unreliable references.Most of them dead links or links leading to self publishing platforms or website of the concerned person. External links are no different. 7Sidz (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


3. Notability can be established from [1][2][3] as these are not self publishing platforms . these are notable news papers platforms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlawe (talk • contribs) 08:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Carlawe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


4. i think notabilty has been established with refrence of persons name in book among notable people— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaganwr (talk • contribs) 05:39, July 30, 2014 (UTC)— Slaganwr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

6. The newspaper references (1,2 or 3) DO NOT contain the name Numeer Nabi in any of the articles. Also, Why is it that accounts of users who have not even been auto confirmed getting into this? Is this a proxy mode of getting support for the article?

If the book is publised, do let the community know about the ISBN Number of the book. You name the author as Raghubir Lal Anand. A Google search revealed no notable author of the name. What are his credentials? 7Sidz (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Desperate attempts are being made now. 7Sidz (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


7. The newspaper references DO contain the name Numeer Nabi as celebrity profile and topic | ISBN 9781482818222 is number of book . [4] [5] [6]

The person has acted in international [7]movie also [8] [9] [10] [11]

8. Another new user registration? When will this acts end? So you say that the news paper references do contain the name, for your reference the links are: i) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Numeer-Nabi ii) http://wn.com/numeer_nabi iii)http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/numeer-nabi

Tell me the difference between that page and a fictitious name made up by me: i) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/John-Castle ii) http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/John-Castle Cite specific lines that say about the concerned person. So, it's a self published book again.

9. i had contributed to the page some time before . I think book bearing [12][23] is not self published . [13][24]

[14] [15][25]i added google search link of both author and publisher for notability issue i add few links may be these help in discussion [16] [17] [18] [19] 

Modlgear (talk) 22:21,31 july 2014 (UTC) — Modlgear (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

10.why is it getting personal here . if person has notability let it be here 

   in my opinion we should contribute links and references to improve article 
   the book discussed is published by Penguin (publisher) sublet partridge publication 
   so ISBN Number of the book is valid and it is a valid reference [20][26] even if we doubt    other references
 
 Kashmir proud (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)— Kashmirproud (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs). [reply]
11.Not a self publishing platform? Well quoting the first few lines from the Patridge India website

link: "Welcome to Partridge India, a new supported self-publishing imprint from Author Solutions LLC" And what's more, the author has to subscribe to one of the plans (i.e.give money) to get the book published.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Sidz (talk • contribs) 14:55, August 1, 2014 (UTC)


12 All major publishing platforms include this option that does not mean you can publish any thing .Author is notable so is book it is not about person but Kashmir valley other references . links about movie can be validated as non self publishing platforms link

[21] also [22] [23] [24] [25]

links for reference [26]can be validated similar to [27]. not self published bt published by editor and created due to notability


(Kashmir proud • Kashmir proud|contribs)13:21,2nd august 2014 (UTC)— Kashmirproud (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

13. Referring to your comment 7Sidz that u created john castle . i dont think john castle is a fictitious character but well know personality and profiles on these newspapers refer to notable people may be there is no news about them in corresponding news paper but still persons are notable that is why news profile is created so as u commented :- (Tell me the difference between that page and a fictitious name made up by me: i) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/John-Castle ii) http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/John-Castle Cite specific lines that say about the concerned person. So, it's a self published book again. ) your saying that you created johncastle as fictious character is baseless so re-access your debate . for you books links documents all are fictious all news papers publishers websites all are self created and published .

Modlgear (talk) 22:21 , 2 August 2014 (UTC)— Modlgear (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

14. A few posts before the debate was that the book is NOT self published and now the debate has shifted altogether! A lot many duplicate references are being created in the name of proving "notability".

Yeah, Modlgear why not? So is xyz yem also a notable person for you? If for a second, i assume your above stated arguments to be true. Then, xyz yem must be a notable person. See for yourself http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/xyz-yem http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/xyz-yem

Knowing that administrators know best about Wikipedia, I leave this debate up to administrators to decide now.


7Sidz (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15. topic is jumping away from here there . As you say xyz yem 7Sidz it topics dont include persons only but interests also

I simplifying this discussion i highlight links and references neutrally on top of discussion to make it simple and precise Modlgear (talk) 6:18 , 3 August 2014 (UTC)— Modlgear (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).


My comment is recent than most other comments i am placing it on top to simplify the discussion The topic seems dragging away to and fro during discussion multiple accounts with not good credibility trying to support page and accounts against topic drift it away from main theme so for simplification purpose of topic discussion i summarize topic and discussion neutrally leaving rest to admin

1.1 References in book [28] Book:- IS God DEAD?????: The Truth about Jammu & Kashmir by RAGHUBIR LAL ANAND ISBN 9781482818222 is reg. number of book

credibility of book references IS God DEAD?????: The Truth about Jammu & Kashmir link 2author credibilitylink 3 for author credibility

1.2 References for presence of person in movie link 1link 2link 3

Reference for credibility of movie link 1link 2 link 3

1.3 links and references of name included with highly notable people link 1link 2link 3
1.4 Links to discography and filmography link 1
1.5 Non credible and weak links link 1 link 2link 3link 4link 5link 6link 7link 8

I summarized all of discussion on basis of links classifying all links into groups including comments of all users . Hope all users here Jinkinson 7Sidz Kashmir proud Slaganwr Carlawe are satisfied with effort of me summarizing this discussion in neutral fashion

Modlgear (talk) 6:54 , 3 August 2014 (UTC)— Modlgear (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

A point or two from my side :

i) Refer to the lead section of the article Numeer Nabi : 'music director, producer host, and social worker' words like 'world wide fame, when surely there has been NO article in Indian media about him.

ii)No reference(s) once again, (while containing peacock terms) for "Further, "Valley's 1st ever 1080! HD video. It met a lot of success taking yafak' s YouTube channel to the level of most popular channel and most trending video in Kashmir."

iii) A registered book that is based on a self publishing platform.

iv)Further, IMDb's use is disputed in certain cases or inappropriate.

v) "Highly notable" people reference guides to "Can you guess the names of ex-lovers?" of three different websites. All these problems make the article "unverifiable" (violates WP:V) and containing "original research" (violates WP:NOR) The page was clearly made as a way for self promotion and advertising.

7Sidz (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


16 Few Points from my side . A reply to 7Sidz . Arash is Tehran born singer a very notable personality all over world even he has no article in a newspaper to support his notability according to your view point this does not mean Arash is not notable . Singers , models depend on other platform for fame . i include search result for Arash on google Search result for Arash on google 

As far as Numeer nabi is considered music is published over 20 platforms around world and there are references for    
   supporting person as notable person as person also acted in movies outside own country
Besides previous mentioned refrences I mention few with links here



None of these platforms or websites is self publishing (Kashmir proud • Kashmir proud|contribs)18:25 ,3rd august 2014 (UTC)— Kashmirproud (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs). 

BTW it has been wikilinked to the wrong Arash.

Arash's notability comes from the fact that EUROVISION's website itself states his name and has uploaded his video songs.

As for the links are concerned. Reliability again, my friend. It's NOT the number of links but the quality. Those links contain content farms, forums, blogs. 7Sidz (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Kashmir proud • Kashmir proud|contribs)09:17 , 4th August 2014 (UTC)— Kashmirproud (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ refrence to notability of author and book
  5. ^ [4]
  6. ^ [5]
  7. ^ movie
  8. ^ [6]
  9. ^ movie
  10. ^ [7]
  11. ^ [8]
  12. ^ ISBN 9781482818222
  13. ^ reference
  14. ^ [9]
  15. ^ reference to publisher of book
  16. ^ http://www.moviesession.net/watch-shabane-rooz-2011-online
  17. ^ http://www.iran-web.rozblog.com/post/12656
  18. ^ http://www.chizomiz.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8083:Shabaneh-Rooz&catid=73:Movies&Itemid=147
  19. ^ http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/is-god-dead-raghubir-lal-anand/1118614164?ean=9781482818239
  20. ^ reference
  21. ^ movie
  22. ^ [10]
  23. ^ [11]
  24. ^ [12]
  25. ^ [13]
  26. ^ link1
  27. ^ link2
  28. ^ [14]

Modlgear (talk) 9:54 , 4th August 2014 (UTC)— Modlgear (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

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

The result was delete. I'm discounting the first and last "keep" !votes, as they give no policy-based rationales for keeping the article. The sources added by Rich Farmbrough (presumably—I don't have access to them) establish that she did indeed appear in two of the roles listed in her filmography, but no one has adduced evidence that any of her roles have been "significant". The consensus is that the subject fails WP:NACTOR. Deor (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Deese[edit]

Mary Deese (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:NACTOR LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:39, 29 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, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 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. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Bruder[edit]

Jiří Bruder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unedited machine translation (Google translate) of the Czech Wikipedia article George Bruder. According to WP:Translation#How to translate: "an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing". It is also a copyrights infringement, as the original author is not credited. Basically, even WP:A2 can apply here, as this is not English, but Czech language article, and it exists in Czech Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 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 speedy keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:39, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:39, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:39, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:39, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:38, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:38, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:38, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:36, 6 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| verbalize _ 23:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coyame UFO incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Coyame UFO incident (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)

In 2009 when this was first nominated for deletion, the !Keep arguments were basically that because there were sensationalist cable shows and UFOlogy books written on the subject, that made this notable enough for an article. I think that we now have a better understanding of what makes a UFO incident notable... in particular we keep in mind WP:NFRINGE and WP:FRIND and look for independent, reliable sources that discuss the event independent of promotion of the UFO true believer agenda. Such sources have not been forthcoming in the five years since this was last AfD'ed. The sole source for the article these days is a self-published source and the fact that this story was told on A&E or History Channel ratings bate does not mean that the story is notable enough for a stand-alone article any more than the individual tales told on the Ancient Aliens show would be deserving of a stand alone article. We have plenty of articles on UFOs and UFO incidents where the fact that people tell this story can be mentioned, but it's time to let the article solely about this purported event go the way of other non-notable UFO incidents. jps (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia we determine Keep/Deletes based on WP:CONSENSUS, not Votes. Given WP:CCC, the 2009 delete discussion is a non-issue here, both for and against. WP:NFRINGE states "For a fringe theory to be considered notable...at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it." One such source would be THIS one from History Channel. Another example of independent coverage is THIS one published by Tor Books. As for "The sole source for the article these days is a self-published source", I always find it fascinating how many good-faith editors and deletionists point to SPS as if we had a ban on SPS. I would point such defractors to the fact that they may have missed that there is no umbrella ban. In any event, the sole source "these days" may appear to be the alleged SPS because, I notice, just last month an editor removed HERE all the in-text sourcing to the History Channel, and yet, -curiously- left intact the entire "Television" section, including the arguably unreliable Arts and Entertainment Network sources. An editor oversight? I don't know. A Wikipedia double-standard? I don't know. A contributors' conspiracy? Again, I don't know. Whatever the reason and his edit summary notwithstanding, the comparison made above to "individual tales told on the Ancient Aliens" is whole inadequate. THIS source on the origin of life states "there are many books and documentaries over the Coyame UFO incident", while this other one HERE on the history of the town of Coyame states "Viewers of the History Channel have doubtless noticed some of their numerous shows concerning UFO evidence, always including both believers and skeptics to leave the interpretation open to the viewer. A good example is their UFO Files: Mexico's Roswell video (History Channel 2005)". I don't perceive any "sentationalism" nor "UFO true believer agendas" even in these two SPS; these sources are far from that. In the end, the question to be asked is, IMO, if readers come across a reference to the Coyame UFO Incident in some other publications, will they be able to come to Wikipedia for information as to what such incident was? By deleting the article the answer is an obvious "No." Mercy11 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCECOUNTING with WP:GHITS is a terrible argument to make. There is plenty of evidence that the "History Channel" shows are not admissible as reliable and neutral sources when it comes to WP:FRINGE topics: [27], [28], [29], etc. In fact, the very Wikipedia page you cite as evidence includes an entire section explaining the problems with that tabloid channel: History Channel#Criticism and evaluation. It is, frankly, rather surprising anyone would argue otherwise, and I can only appeal to WP:COMPETENCE as a possible explanation. jps (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Humm, I didn't think I would have to repeat myself ad nauseum once more but, in case it was missed, here it is once more: The relevant and applicable Wikipedia guideline here, WP:NFRINGE, states "For a fringe theory to be considered notable,...at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it", and THIS fully satisfies that. BTW, we don't pit long-established community-approved Wikipedia pillars that have resulted from time-consuming peer-reviewed consensus, such as WP:NFRINGE, against self-published Wikipedia opinion essays like the ones mentioned in the rebuttal above (i.e., WP:SOURCECOUNTING, WP:GHITS, and WP:COMPETENCE). Such 3 essays may be fine for clarifying a point but not as a valid argument positioned to replace a guideline. The History Channel#Criticism and evaluation wikilink above is likewise a WP:SPS and a poor choice as a valid delete argument, where "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines [are] given more weight than unsupported statements". Mercy11 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on multiple points: 1) notability of a topic is not dependent upon whether the story is true, 2) notability of a topic is not dependent upon whether you or I believe the story to be true, 3) notability of a topic is not dependent upon whether you or I like the story, and 4) notability of a topic is dependent upon various aspects of coverage in reliable sources. Our interpretation of reliable sourcing for fringe-type articles appears to be where we differ. Your quotation of WP:NFRINGE has omitted a very important part of that guideline: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article [emphasis mine] if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." None of the sources that you have presented pass that test. Location (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was no incident in 1974, so there is no need to search Spanish language resources for reports of a crash. All the material about this alleged incident is an uncritical regurgitation of what Torres and Uriarte wrote in Mexico's Rosewell. You could try to make an argument that this should pass WP:NBOOK, but we don't build Wikipedia articles based on unreliable sources (i.e. sources that cannot distinguish fact from hoax). Location (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the incident actually happened is besides the point. Hoaxes can be notable, too. See Piltdown Man as a classic example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated" and as such has plenty of reliable sources discussing it as such. On the other hand, the only sources that discuss this one or those gullible enough to present it as fact. Given that there are no reliable sources discussing this as an "alleged incident" or a hoax, is Wikipedia to present this as an event that actually happened? Hoaxes can be notable if they are discussed in reliable sources, but this one is not. Location (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever checked the article text? It is not presented "as an event that actually happened". Luckylouie's edit conforms to the standards. Your definition of "fact-checking" is not correct. "Verifiability, not truth" is the core of the policy WP:V, here. If we (or someone else) can verify that coyame people tell stories about an ufo-plane collision and crash, that's the fact checking. There are some other issues, though. Logos5557 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are in complete agreement about verifiability vs. truth in WP:V. My point is that if the article states that this is an alleged incident, then we need a reliable source stating that it is an alleged incident. Otherwise, the use of "alleged" means we have poisoned the well as to what we think the truth might be. Location (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what your intention was (whether critical, that is, with malice, or positive, that is, constructive) in your use of the word "motivation" and then linking to it edits that I made. If constructive, I thank you, and I will assume good faith and assume you are, in fact, addressing the issue and not attacking me personally, because if your intention was to attack me personally, (1) your "seems" clause is ridiculously speculative - at Wikipedia we determine issues based on facts, not speculation; (2) you have Zero percent (0%) clue as to what my alleged "motivation" was - if you wanted to know, you should had simply asked me rather than attempt to influence this forum with an unfounded allegation; (3) to save your asking now, I inform you I made the edits for the same reason I make every other edit in Wikipedia - to improve it: the previous version HERE was pointing to a source that was tagged as SPS, and my edit HERE updated the article with a source that is not a SPS converting it into a better version HERE. That is, the UFO Hunters book was not used as a source before and thus the nominator above made the claim that the article was a candidate for deletion becuase it had no RS as it was using Francisco Natera's (2012) "Coyame a History of the American Settler", a book published by a the self-publishing company Xlibris Corporation, as a source. As allowed by the AfD policy, I improved the article by removing the SPS and adding a non-SPS source in its place. Do you have a problem with that? So far it appears you do, and so I am asking you.
If you had wanted to improve the encyclopedia, rather than propagating the SPS inline tag when you made THIS copy HERE and thus perpetuating the SPS error, you could had as easily removed the alleged SPS cite before your copy to List of UFO Sightings (since there was another source there anyway) or, better yet, you could had found a SPS yourself and add it before you propagated the article SPS error. Your edit at List of UFO Sightings (yielding THIS unsightly version) was, IMO, either laziness or poor judgment. And to rebuk your "promotion" allegation, there is no need to "promote" the UFO Hunters book to anything: this discusion here is about the article Coyame UFO incident, and not about the book UFO Hunters which is not, and has never been, self-published. Mercy11 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I retract my "motivation to promote" remark, as it seems that that book was not in the article previously. I must have confused it with one of the repetitive citations to UFO Hunters-history channel. However, in the end, history channel UFO Hunters is directly related to the book, therefore adding it to the article is just to repeat the same source ("WILLIAM J. BIRNES is the New York Times bestselling coauthor of The Day After Roswell and The Haunting of America. He is the lead host and consulting producer of the UFO Hunters® series, and guest host of Ancient Aliens® series, and the guest expert on UFOs and American history on the America’s Book of Secrets®, all of which air on HISTORY®"). SPS tag/label is just to warn the reader and to create the potential of a better source in future. Self published sources are not forbidden completely, it requires some judgement. In this incident's case, since there is no other alternative, using it as a source will not bring the end of the world. Because, the book's theme is Coyame and its culture etc., not UFOs, which increases its "value" compared to Birnes' book. Not every argument is holy truth in AFD discussions/nominations. When UFO Hunters article is created, most probably it will be merged into UFO Hunters eventually. Logos5557 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It appears to be little more than promotional material for the TV show. (Macmillan describes it as a companion book to the TV show.) The copyright for the book is owned by A&E Television Network (same parent company as the History Channel, A+E Television Networks), not the author, and not the publisher. A&E is a for-profit enterprise with a financial interest in promulgating this story as a historical event. That is a conflict of interest between A&E's profits and the contents of the text being true. (I.e., A&E will get more viewers and more ad revenue if UFO believers see them as the only source of information that they want, such as this story and others like it. Fringe adherents can be particularly vulnerable to this kind of financial exploitation because they have so few sources to begin with.)
  2. This ebook preview is a primary source. The author is telling his own account of the group's trip to Mexico and his own interpretation of the evidence. He is a primary source with the same financial conflict of interest as A&E. (WP:WPNOTRS)
  3. Most of the content, other than the first-person account of the trip to Mexico, is speculation, and it is described as such. (In some places, however, the text does treat the incident as fact. That self-contradiction in itself is very problematic for reliability.)
  4. As this is an ebook preview, many, many pages are missing. When there are missing pages, there is missing context. Did one of the missing pages nullify what is said on the available pages? "The following account is fictitious. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is coincidental."
FWIW, the Macmillan name does not grant academic credibility to the book. Macmillan is not "one of the world's leading academic and peer-reviewed publishers," and in any case this is neither an academic book nor is it peer-reviewed. Pearson bought out Macmillan's academic publishing some time back (late 90s I think?), long before this book was published under the Tor Books (sci-fi & fantasy) imprint. (Pearson has been buying up academic publishers for a couple decades now - Benjamin Cummings, AWL, Macmillan, part of Harcourt, Prentice Hall and the rest of Simon & Schuster's academic publishing. Most college textbooks, regardless of the imprint, are now Pearson publications.) Dcs002 (talk) 10:32, 7 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) 22:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Childhood (Yehuda Nir)[edit]

The Lost Childhood (Yehuda Nir) (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 contested by an IP, no reason given. There is no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. GiantSnowman 11:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 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) 15:46, 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. Twice relisted, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam song)[edit]

Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam song) (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)

Song was not released as a single per the band's website. Fails WP:N as a stand-alone article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 23:05, 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) 15:43, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Chera[edit]

Jean Chera (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 without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue giant (disambiguation)[edit]

Blue giant (disambiguation) (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 am not mandating this dab article to delete but you may judge its available content if this passes or fails the WP:DAB & WP:DABPRIMARY requirements. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 14:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep, see below Mz7 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 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 speedy delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMELEC (disambiguation)[edit]

COMELEC (disambiguation) (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)

Useless dab, the Comité Maghrébin de l’Electricité, a supranational committee of the Arab Maghreb Union, does not exist on the link. Refer to WP:DAB & WP:TWODABS if this dab page passes fails the requirements. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JCI Technologies[edit]

JCI Technologies (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)

nn PR spam. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 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, buffbills7701 22:06, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 14:31, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Polish National Catholic Church[edit]

Holy Cross Polish National Catholic Church (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)

As far as I can tell, this church does not exist. "Third and Queen" in Pe Ell must refer to West Queen Avenue and South Third Street, where there is no church. The coordinates given in the article are slightly north-east of that corner in a field. While there are links to the National REgister of Historic Places, those documents give only the "Third and Queen" address. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/87001456_text Mikeblas (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mija Flatau[edit]

Mija Flatau (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)

Biography of a blogger. The only sources that I could find were other minor blogs. Fails WP:AUTHOR. - MrX 14:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Jenkins[edit]

Dave Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for musicians. Dave Jenkins is not the subject of non-trivial press or media coverage, nor is he a member of a notable ensemble.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telkom Foundation[edit]

Telkom Foundation (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)

A7 Kadzi (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:29, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Whiz[edit]

Testing Whiz (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 product. Essentially a stub. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article may have been expanded, but it didn't add any references, probably because none could be found. I didn't find any anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 6 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Anita's[edit]

Little Anita's (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 CSD" from Talk:Little Anita's by 180.172.239.231 Smile Lee (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Nomination reason is insufficient. Also, this chain of restaurants has been covered in multiple magazines, newspapers, and websites. It is extremely important to the history of New Mexican cuisine, and its restaurant culture. And it has received accolades outside of its founding region, particularly in Denver. And, considering its a New Mexican staple that means there are local accolades, not currently listed in the article. Smile Lee (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smile Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocterCox (talk • contribs) 12:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response, WP:ITSLOCAL is not a reason for deletion. Regardless, that Washington Post article is about Anita Tellez, the founder of this establishment; and the article states that quite clearly. She is most famous for the creation of Little Anita's, and the several "Anita's" restaruants around the country. Little Anita's however is the only one to have significant coverage of its own. Smile Lee (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, “Anita's” is not a franchise, it's a restaurant business with multiple locations, all of which, as far as I know, were personally founded by Anita and operated by her family and staff. I agree that we don't create articles such as “McDonald's locations in Maine”, but this article is not of that type. The Washington DC area restaurants use the Website “www.anitascorp.com”.  Unician ∇  12:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anita moved from New Mexico to the Washington, DC, metro area and founded the DC-area restaurants under the name “Anita's”. (More specifically, they're all located in Northern Virginia.) I don't believe there was ever a national headquarters corporation offering the name, style, menu, and reputation for sale to local investors across the country, as would be the case for a generic franchise chain. Anita was personally visible at her restaurants, and one could often tell if she was there even before walking in the door by the presence of her signature British car parked outside. I don't know if this is still technically a “family business”, especially since the passing of Anita herself, but it doesn't fall under the category of a nationwide franchise.  Unician ∇  14:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Modelo[edit]

El Modelo (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 CSD" from Talk:El Modelo by 180.172.239.231 Smile Lee (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A source can only corroborate other sources if they exist and are included in the article. If there are other, offline sources, they need to be included. Google's newspaper archives didn't turn up a single hit, which leaves me a little skeptical that much is going to turn up, but I admit that's hardly definitive. I don't think those archives include the Albuquerque Tribune, which is a pretty big gap. So yeah, there very well could be stuff out there, but I'm not sure why we should have non-notable article on the contingency that sources might eventually surface.
The Weekly Alibi is a review in a local paper, and does not, in my opinion, establish national significance. It's a review in a weekly which publish at least one restaurant review per issue, if not more. How many hundreds of restaurants have they reviewed over the years? That source should be used in the article, but it doesn't do an adequate job of establishing notability. The Google link to the American Culinary Federation is not fully viewable to me for some reason, but it does say that El Modelo is only mentioned on two pages, one of which appears to be passing, so I'm not sure what to make of that. I stand by my original opinion. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources you removed are indeed self-published sources, but this is not a bio of a living person, and as such they can be included to back these claims. They are also published by professional writers working in the relevant field that have previously been published by reliable third-party publications, Andrew Romano and Gil Garduño, they are relevant to establishing notability. Also, I never claimed that the Weekly Alibi added to notability. The American Culinary Federation is not fully available on Google, I also found a couple older articles from the Albuquerque Journal. Smile Lee (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SPS, self published sources "are largely not acceptable as sources." That doesn't exclusivly apply to BLPs. Romano may be a professional writer, but his article was not published under any sort of editorial oversight. Garduño was interviewed for an article about his blog, that is not the same as having been published by 3rd party sources. I don't believe either source should be used, especially not to establish notability. WP:GNG emphasizes editorial oversight as part of reliability. Grayfell (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Though this shouldn't be discussed on the AfD page, I will post about it on the Talk page of the main article, this just shows that the article simply needs to be worked on. Smile Lee (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point regarding proper sourcing for restaurants- reviews, best of lists, directories, now open listings and all other WP:Routine coverage only provides that the place is WP:Verifiable. You need quality sources that are about the chain, not the poor quality listings that you have provided. You need articles that are about the chain, and when I say about the chain I mean articles that discuss its history in depth, it business model and other structures related to it. These other sources you keep adding aren't worth the paper they were printed on regarding notability. Remember that sources that are reliable do not automatically confer notability to a subject simply because said source is inherently reliable. You need quality, not quantity, and so far you have not provided the required quality sources. E.G. just because Roger Ebert reviewed some movie does not make that movie notable because Roger Ebert reviewed it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're entitled to your opinion, but being voted among the Best Mexican Restaurant by T + L is not routine, being mentioned by USAToday twice is not routine. And, that Alibi article is significant in length, and is no where near routine, as it is not a simple review, as it covers the topic in depth. You're right, Roger Ebert reviewing a movie does not make it notable, but on the opposite side of the coin, a review by that high caliber a reviewer is not routine; though his reviews are not usually as in depth as Gil's and Alibi's are in this case. Smile Lee (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Gil's and Alibi's are in depth reviews that detail the history, cultural importance, and foods of the restaurant. And as for the USAToday and Travel + Leisure listings/reviews, as per WP:TRIVCOV, "the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions". Smile Lee (talk) 16:21, 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 deckertalk 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vault 106[edit]

Vault 106 (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 record label - the only source in this article is their own webpage. A google search doesn't return much Gbawden (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:19, 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. As so often, all the SPA activity does is to emphasize the real lack of notability for either the person or the organization. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mushtaq Pahalgami[edit]

Mushtaq Pahalgami (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)

appears non-notable. Most references given appear to only mention them in passing, or are self-published or blogs. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Appears to not be notable. The regional paper is in English and availble online, and a Google search reveals several mentions, all of which are merely quotes on various events. Can't find anything that gives signifigant coverage.

Reventtalk 07:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notable External Links/Redirects

full list

http://www.risingkashmir.com/clean-our-environs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahman ganai (talk • contribs) 03:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/mar/31/environment-hazard-40.asp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manzoor Deen (talk • contribs) 10:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RS, and WP:ROUTINE, then cite some reliable sources instead of the unreliable ones you have provided above. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete; As for coverage by national dailies, anybody familiar with the politics of J&K would know News from the valley hardly finds mention in the mainstream media here; not even the blatant everyday human rights violations, forget RTI and Environment! Th page is important to document whatever efforts local civil society organizations are making for development despite the turmoil and the general political background and context. There are sources outside print that can verify the information given in the article though; Journalists from local newspapers, covering Pahalgam can be contacted for the same. Samar khurshid (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Samar[reply]

ghulam nabi magray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.54.114 (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — 59.89.54.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1. 'Pahalgam mein nasha aur tambaku mukhalif seminar munaqqad hua', Srinagar, 05th June, 2013, in Srinagar Times, ref. www.srinagartimes.net 2. 'Tons of garbage being dumped on banks of Tulyan Canal', Kashmir Times, Srinagar, 17th of May, 2013, ref. www.kashmirtimes.com 3. 'Pahalgam tent union ka aham ijlaas munaqqad', 27th May, 2014, Srinagar Times, ref. www.srinagartimes.net 4. 'Pahalgam ke ghodebanon ko waajib ul qadar raqam wa guzar kee jaye', 31-05-2010, Srinagar Times, ref. www.srinagartimes.net 5. 'glacieron ke phighalne se mahaulyati tawazun bigadne ka imkaan', 15-03-2010, Kashmir News Service, ref. http://www.knskashmir.com/ 6. 'Pahalgam ke wildlife zone mein ghair-qanooni taamiraat', 08-02-10, Daily Aftab, Srinagar 7. 'Pahalgam mein rihaish-pazeer aabaadi ke liye master-plan 2004-05 dard-e sar', 11-03-10, Kashmir News Service, ref. http://www.knskashmir.com/ 8. 'Pahalgam mein Higher-Secondary ko degree college ka darja dene ke khilaf logon ne kiya muzahira', Ittelaat, Kashmir, ref. [website taken down, newspaper banned] 9. 'Pahalgam mein Master-plan ki khilaafwarzi kar ke mukhtalif maqaamaat par hotelon ki taameer tezi se jaari', 02/01/10, Hind Samachar, ref. www.hindsamachar.in/ 10. 'Pahalgam mein hukumat ki jaanib se taamirati kamon aur rihaishi makaanat ki marammat par mukammal pabandi', 12/01/11, Ittelaat, Kashmir, ref. [website taken down, newspaper banned] Simin akhter (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Simin Akhter[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not Delete, kindly refer to the urdu language references for the individual's contribution in and beyond his organization's activities.Asrar aalam (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)striking duplicate !vote. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a 'letter to the editor' published on a website it not evidence of notability. Reventtalk 00:17, 6 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete refer to urdu language sources, urdu language is a official language of jammu and kashmir state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayaz pahalgam (talk • contribs) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deserving for stay page http://www.risingkashmir.com/clean-our-environs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahman ganai (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Rahman ganai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Having had a 'letter to the editor' published is not evidence of notability. Reventtalk 00:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough evidences kindly be keep above said page permanent there ,and already i seen three websites and more and more links is ready for reference.is it deserving for staying here.

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 Wikipedias. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 07:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese Wikipedia[edit]

Nepalese Wikipedia (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 version of Wikipedia; the article doesn't include any third-party sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:26, 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. Twice relisted, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crowe (band)[edit]

Crowe (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)

Band with no strong claim to meeting WP:NMUSIC, with its notability claim resting exclusively on local radio airplay and campus radio charts in their own home media market, and with no reliable sourcing to demonstrate that they belong in an encyclopedia, relying exclusively on primary sources and non-notable blogs. It also bears mention that the article was created and has been edited mainly by User:Crowemusic, thus constituting a conflict of interest. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if good sources, supporting a real claim of notability, can be located to salvage the article with — but in this form it's a clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 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, buffbills7701 22:05, 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, Davewild (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:49, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Yoon[edit]

Jayden Yoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page. Notability not established - serious case of look at me. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, please google him, he is a famous artist and very well known in Malaysia. I can upload newspapers for you to see if you still don't believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvdlee561 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 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 deckertalk 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Mayweather Jones[edit]

Justin Mayweather Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer. Single professional fight - does not meet WP:NBOX. Family relation to some notable boxers has no relevance since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Peter Rehse (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 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. Michig (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art Beins[edit]

Art Beins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional page of martial arts teacher. Reads like an advert but no evidence of notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Primary sourced promo piece, did a 2 minute tidy but unlikely to be salvageable. --Natet/c 10:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 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. Redirected to Proverb by Sulaimandaud. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 08:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example of proverb[edit]

Example of proverb (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)

There is a detailed article on proverb Sulaimandaud (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 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. Michig (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Konopisos[edit]

Jason Konopisos (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 BLP. His only claims to notability are bit roles in notable films, no sources provided (or found) that suggest notability. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 06:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the point of the above comment, except to prove that Konopisos is notable in Carbonflyer's head. However, having such singular notability does not provide an argument for keeping the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:36, 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. Michig (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wickerham[edit]

Ryan Wickerham (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 BLP. No sources that suggest notability, and the only claims to notability are projects he had minor roles in. All the sources are either IMDB links or a passing mention on a blog. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 06:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hours City Florist[edit]

24 Hours City Florist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on a Singapore florist shop, submitted multiple times by a declared paid-editor. Previous versions (under names closer to what appears to be the actual firm name) were speedy-deleted: 24Hrs City Florist and 24 Hrs City Florist. A CSD A7 has been declined this time, so I am bringing it to AfD for a persistent decision. It is a firm going about its business, but the offered references are a mix of PR and directory listings, and I don't see these or the claimed awards as providing evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariathas Manojanraj[edit]

Mariathas Manojanraj (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 dont see the notability here the person was just a delivery man not a journalist. it says that his death was part of a series of killing of Tamil media workers, what makes this persons death stand out compared to the other people who had died? Redsky89 (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out and have fixed 9 references will do some more.It is nearly 7 years since the article was created and the links added.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:46, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Mamari[edit]

Abdullah Al-Mamari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth A. Loparo[edit]

Kenneth A. Loparo (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 appear to be an autobiography. It's largely self-promotional and does not appear to satisfy WP:NACADEMICS. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that he does pass WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of Google Scholar, but I would welcome some feedback from people who know more about his field. I also can't determine if he passes WP:Prof#C5. He does not appear to be a distinguished professor but I'm not sure what a "Nord Professor" is. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly an endowed chair of precisely the type described by #C5. That's what it means to be called by something of the form "X Professor" where X looks like the name of a person or company. (Distinguished Professor, University Professor, etc. are something different but comparable in the level of distinction they convey.) If you aren't familiar with this convention, perhaps guessing which of our articles on academics are worth keeping might not be your strength. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. I must admit that my sympathies are with the "delete" !votes here, as I see nothing really encyclopedic in the current article. However, at this point there is essentially no consensus, leaning to "keep". Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dodge[edit]

Mark Dodge (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 guy falls far short of notability for either military or sportspeople. Mostly the article is built around interviews with him, which generally fail as reliable sources. This is the type of thing that gets one-time coverage as a feel good human interest story, but lacks any permanent, encyclopedic value.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 29 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, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Apparently, we have different definitions of what constitutes "trivial." Which of these feature articles in a major publication do you deem to be "trivial"?
  • feature story - Houston Chronicle, primary newspaper serving the fourth largest city in the United States;
  • feature story - ESPN.com, website of the largest TV sports network in the United States, which dominates coverage of college and professional sports;
  • feature story - USA Today, a national newspaper with the largest print circulation of any newspaper in the United States; or
  • feature story - Associated Press, the largest news wire service in the United States, and one of the two largest English-language wire services in the world (the other being Reuters).
Did you read the linked articles? Are you familiar with these sources? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, these are all just human interest stories. He is a former college football player who happens to have previously served in the army and been at the Pentagon when it was attacked. The papers have picked up on this and decided to write stories about him. It doesn't matter how significant those papers or other media outlets are. Yes, he may have an interesting story to tell, as many military veterans do, but this does not make him notable in Wikipedia terms. He is notable neither as a sportsman (since he has not played professionally) nor as a military veteran (since he was not a senior officer and has not been awarded any significant decorations). He's just a bloke who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and then played a sport for his university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Dodge was a two-year starting linebacker on one of the major NCAA Division I college football teams. Dodge received, over a period of five or more years, repeated significant coverage, including feature articles, in major national and regional publications and media outlets. That more than satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I urge you to review the linked GNG guidelines; there is no requirement that anyone have done "something noteworthy" in order to be "notable." Wikipedia's concept of notability is based on the depth and quality of coverage of the subject, not on any particular accomplishment or noteworthiness of the subject. If necessary, I am more than willing to post the GNG guidelines on this AfD page for ease of reference. You are arguing from a viewpoint that is not supported by the applicable Wikipedia guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Playing sport at university level is not sufficient for notability. This is long established. As to the GNG, yes we all know what they say. However, whether Dodge qualifies for an article under GNG would depend on your definition of "significant coverage". "A lot" does not necessarily equate to "significant". Local politicians, for instance, get a lot of media coverage, but it is routine coverage. It is not generally considered sufficient for notability on Wikipedia (and this has been held to be the case many times in AfDs). Dodge's coverage is merely human interest coverage. It is because he has an interesting story. It does not, however, equate to significant coverage, which would make him notable in our terms. It could, in fact, be said to come under WP:ONEEVENT, since it is primarily about his involvement in the Pentagon attack. If he had not gone on to play college football with a well-known team then his involvement would have been considered no more notable than the involvement of anyone else who was peripherally involved in the incident. It goes like this: lots of people like American football, the Pentagon attack was a notable incident and people are naturally interested in that too, an American football player (although one not notable enough for an article for his involvement in the sport) was involved in the attack, so the media have written articles about him because they know that it's a good human interest story because it combines two of America's big interests. But that fact still doesn't make him notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer, what we have here is the result of a specific combination of several important US-related topics: 9/11, football and military service. It's essentially a chance conflation of several very "all-American" ideals focused on one individual. If all that was needed was mere media coverage, we wouldn't have notability guidelines in specific fields. Setting those aside in this case feels like you're missing the "presumed"-part of WP:GNG.
Peter Isotalo 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, you're missing the part where the specific notability guidelines impart nothing more than a presumption of notability, too. It is well established that the specific notability guidelines are not exclusive, but are simply rules of thumb that permit a quicker analysis while avoiding a full-fledged GNG analysis. For any subject that passes a full-blown GNG analysis, the specific guidelines are moot. It's a dirty little secret that many subjects that are presumed notable under the specific guidelines could never pass GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specific guidelines give us more guidance in cases like this than the purely procedural general notability guidelines. General notability should be the start of the discussion, not the end of it. What you're arguing for in my view that is coverage, regardless of its nature, confers automatic notability. I can see no "full-blown" analysis. In my view, this isn't any different from routine coverage of local politicians mentioned by Necrothesp. When a minimum of critical analysis is applied to this, this topic fails in every single aspect, especially when WP:ONEEVENT (9/11) is taken into consideration.
Peter Isotalo 09:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the long discussion above, I suspect each "notable" in Necrothesp's comment can be substituted with "famous", "important" or "successful". (For exapmle, "Playing sport only at university level is not a success.") But WP:GNG points out that determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.
I raised a question on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Additional criteria yesterday. (Actually before the debate began, what a coincidence!) And I'll !vote keep unless we reach a different consensus. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the disconnect here, I believe, is cultural. All three "delete" voters are from Europe, where college sports are not a major form of athletic competition. College football in the US is, in fact, a big time sport. Texas A&M, where Dodge played, is one of the elite programs, drawing an average of 87,125 fans to each game per this NCAA publication. The program also generates $94 million a year in revenue per this analysis. Most professional sports teams do not come close to these figures. This is not to say that every college football player warrants an article. They do not. But when a player at a big-time college football program like Texas A&M receives in-depth coverage in the mainstream media, as Dodge has, the well-established precedent is that he passes WP:GNG, just the same as any athlete. We ought not allow personal value judgments about particular sports alter that analysis. Dodge is an award-winning college football player at one of the top collegiate programs. See this CBS Sports (major national outlet) feature story about Dodge receiving the Tillman Patriot Award. If we substitute our own value judgment about an athlete's encyclopedic value, we undermine the objective standards that are at the core of WP:GNG and engender never-ending battles about which person, sport, etc. is truly encyclopedic. Given the level of coverage given to Mark Dodge, can anyone truly say with a straight face that he is less notable than a person who played one game in a professional soccer or baseball game and never had a feature story written about them? I don't think so. Likewise, and borrowing Peter's analytical benchmark, can anyone truly say with a straight face that the referenced one-game professional soccer/baseball player is more is any more notable as a person or to his sport than Dodge? Again, I don't think so. Dodge clearly passes WP:GNG, and the contrary value judgments of a handful of "delete" voters should not be allowed to override the extensive in-depth coverage and editorial judgments of the largest media outlets in the United States. Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to opt out of the Europe vs US-argument, please. I'm very well-versed in the importance of college sports and I am only applying WP:NCOLLATH to that part. The rest is just WP:ONEEVENT. I also took a very similar stand regarding Joachim Cronman, an unremarkable Swedish officer of the lower nobility. He achieved absolutely nothing that has been described outside of standard entries in Swedish nobility directories (similar to Almanach de Gotha). To me, the general argument that any coverage in (otherwise important) sources isn't a convincing argument for inclusion in a encyclopedia.
Peter Isotalo 15:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, my only reason for mentioning European-ness of the "delete" voters is that college sports in Europe are not significant and most Europeans I've talked to are quite surprised (even flummoxed) to find out what a big deal they are in the US. In any event, a college athlete may qualify through either WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH (need not satisfy both). Here, the in-depth and broad coverage of Dodge passes GNG even though some editors may think he's a trivial character. What's important, and the genius behind or GNG standard, is that we look at it objectively, and what is important is that editors of major media outlets have deemed him to be noteworthy; whether you or I find him noteworthy is not the correct benchmark. Also, WP:NCOLLATH expressly states: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Here, the coverage of Dodge is plainly not routine. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Other WP:ROUTINE coverage" seems like exactly what human interest stories are. But the most convincing argument in my mind is still that his notability argument stem entirely from the coverage itself rather than something applied to any relevant field. Peter Isotalo 16:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the outdent. Was getting a bit cramped. The coverage of Dodge is not routine. Routine sports coverage would be things like passing mentions in game coverage, inclusion in statistical listings, a very short blurb in a pre-season team profiles, maybe even a short story in the guy's smalltown home newspaper. The coverage of Dodges consists of feature stories that are written about him -- the antithesis of routine coverage. As for your last point, the coverage doesn't just arise from a vacuum and report about nothing. The coverage is principally about two things (1) his role in historic events involving 9/11, and (2) his play for one of the elite football programs in the US. Subjectively, you consider his connection to these events to be trivial, but, again, what matters here is that the editors of major media outlets deemed his role in these events to be sufficiently meaningful and notable that they exercised their editorial judgment in publishing multiple, in-depth feature stories about him. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)/FAQ.(The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me "gameday features" and the likes are obvious types of "other routine coverage" since it's unrelated to any actual football achievements. If this isn't routine, then what exactly is? We obviously agree that Dodge's athletic records don't meet minimal notability standards. This is also perfectly obvious if you read the coverage in USA Today, ESPN and the Houston Chronicle; all of it is really about 9/11 and military service. So in what way is Dodge notable in relation to 9/11? Are all military personnel who served at one of the crash sites considered notable enough for their own article? Or does this privilege extend only to those who have been college athletes?
Peter Isotalo 14:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We include topics with significiant coverage in reliable sources and exclude topics without them. We keep deleting local things such as roads, bus routes and shopping malls. Some of these might be rather important in a large city, or even a in state.(such as a shopping mall over 500K sqft) But without reliable sources we don't want to keep them. If some additional judgement should be exercised, should these local things be considered notable because they are "important" to a ceratin degree? No. In my own view, if we made additional judgement, WP:GNG would no longer be objective as it is today. And there is no need to start a discussion on GNG talk page/--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument from GNG doesn't require us to determine exactly what aspect of a topic makes it notable; it just asserts that if the editors of multiple reliable sources exercised their judgement and decided that Dodge was worth covering, then Dodge is notable in Wikipedia terms. I see your point about human interest and the lack of any fundamental inherent notability, but it is debates about "inherent notability" that GNG is, in my view, designed to bypass. I understand that you feel some additional judgement should be exercised, rather than a blind adherence to rules, but my reading of GNG differs from yours. I think this might be a good discussion for the GNG talk page, using this AfD as an example, rather than for this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That a highly specific guideline like WP:NCOLLATH is "bypassed" I could somewhat understand, but not that WP:BLP (WP:ONEEVENT is an important part of it) is seen as irrelevant. I'll see if there's interest regarding this at WP:N, though.[48] This AfD seems to be heading towards an obvious no-consensus-keep.
Peter Isotalo 14:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested that "merely playing at a big name school" is enough to show notability. Having feature stories written and broadcast in major national media outlets, however, that is enough under any measure. Cbl62 (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem -- Your comments misstate the facts and established policy and precedent on many levels. First, your assertion that "he's local" is a factual misstatement (unless you consider the United States to be "local"). The coverage is in national media sources of wide circulation. Second, it has never been held that NCOLLATH overrules GNG. To the contrary, it has always been held that a college athlete may qualify under either. Third, there is no BLP issue here. The article is well sourced. Fourth, the coverage is not limited to a single event separate from the individual. The sources cover Dodge's military career and also his participation in college sports which covered more than just a single game or event. Fifth, your characterization of Dodge as a "failed" college athlete is erroneous, as he won All-Big 12 honors in one of the elite conferences. Sixth, and in any event, he passes NCOLLATH in two respects (i) he has "been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage," and (ii) he received "national media attention as an individual." Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: I am disappointed in your logic (or lack thereof) regarding WP:NCOLLATH. You, as much as anyone, knows that WP:NCOLLATH is not and never has been an exclusive test of notability for American college athletes. NCOLLATH is and always has been backstopped by WP:GNG, just like all of the the other specific guidelines of WP:NSPORTS. Feel free to argue BLP1E, but please let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater. Far more than half of the college athlete AfDs in which I have participated have been decided on the basis of GNG and not NCOLLATH. And we both know that GNG is the harder standard to satisfy. And given your long involvement and sophistication in notability policy and guidelines, I am pretty sure you know this already. As for your characterization of the subject as "a failed college player," well, to be charitable to you, that's simply nonsense. He was a two-year starter at one of the premier NCAA Division I college football programs in one of the two predominant college football conferences. And in case you've missed it, one of the things that makes the subject's story interesting is that he was also a student of non-traditional university age: he was 25 and 26 years old during his two Division I seasons, when he teammates and his opponents were all aged 18 to 23.
As for your assertion that "BLP1E and NCOLLATH are two of the few notability guidelines that specifically overrule the GNG, specifically because people that fall into these categories may get a wide range of coverage but have no long-term notability," well, I urge you to start reviewing every college athlete AfD for the last three years, because the overwhelming majority of them have been wrongly decided if you are correct that NCOLLATH trumps GNG. Your position effectively advocates overturning the established understanding and consensus regarding the relationship of NCOLLATH and GNG. If you really don't know this, then we have far bigger problems than either of us previously understood. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sports guidelines makes it clear that college athletes should only have articles if "the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage", and specifcally warns against local coverage (the Houston Chronicle at this point), allowing the GNG to be overridden (otherwise, we'd have articles on every high school and college athlete). I consider the reporting of this person in USA Today, ESPN and the like as part of ROUTINE - oh, here's a new player, let's discuss him. This was at the start of the career. He only caught the eye of the press because of being tied to 9/11 events. Again, separate out the two, neither aspect alone is notable, and so combining them does not make them notable either. Because he left sports, there's nothing more to this person, and thus he has no enduring notability. Ergo, deletion is proper. And to add that a key element of the GNG is enduring coverage, and the bulk of coverage being pulled from is a few months in 2006. Nothing of significance since. That screams even more of a second BLP1E issue - his signing to play on the Augies being highlighted by the press - as a problem. Just because we can document someone doesn't mean they necessarily have to have an article. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Your interpretation of NCOLLATH is erroneous. The mention of WP:ROUTINE is simply to clarify what constitutes routine coverage in the context of college sports. Post-game summaries are routine. Pre-game and post-game quotes from players are routine. Major feature articles carried in national newspapers such as USA Today are not "routine."
Furthermore, Houston, Texas is the fourth largest city in the United States, with a metropolitan area of more than 6 million people. Texas A&M University is not located in Houston, but in College Station, Texas. Saying that coverage in the Houston Chronicle is "local" is like suggesting coverage of Oxford in the London newspapers is "local." The hometown newspaper for Texas A&M is The Bryan-College Station Eagle, not the Houston Chronicle in a distinctly different city 100 miles away. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's close enough to be local - that is, while there is University of Houston that I'm sure the Houston Chronicle covers, it's also going to cover other local colleges (which, 100 mi in Texas, is nothing). But my point for deletion does not rest heavily on the local issue, but as a routine issue and even thinking about it more, implied inherited notability ("oh, here's a new athlete that was tied to 9/11, great human interest story!") He left sports and has done nothing since in the 6-7 years. No enduring notability, ergo, we should not be covering them. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer, Cb162, regarding WP:NCOLLATH: if you want to argue that someone is notable according to topic-specific guidelines, you have to apply logical consistency. Topic-specific criteria obviously refer to topic-specific achievements (sports). Otherwise you could just as easily claim that Dodge is also a notable soldier (according to WP:MILHIST), which is obviously not the case.
Peter Isotalo 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is logical consistency -- have you even read NCOLLATH? One of the topic-specific criteria, subpart (3), is a college athlete who has: "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." As discussed above, Dodge has received such national coverage. We're going in circles now. Also, as Dirtlawyer has noted, established policy and precedent confirm that passing WP:GNG is enough, and Dodge does that. Cbl62 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason they're called "Human interest stories". Yes, he had several articles that were specifically about him, but over a very short period of time and specifically more on because he was 9/11. That's it - he's a good Samaritan for sure, but that's it. National news will do this all the time on slow news days, dedicating a short article or segment to a feel-good or humorous story that would put the person int the national spotlight for a brief moment. That's why BLP1E is the big player here - we don't include articles when the coverage is like that, and that's what this clearly is. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note the crucial qualification in the juxtaposition of "individual" and "notable team". That basically screams "coverage as a sportsperson". You're claiming it means simply "gained national media attention", which is a very selective reading.
Peter Isotalo 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Masem and Peter are proposing is a radical departure from existing precedent and consensus under which the sport projects have operated for as long as I have been involved (3+ years). This is no "tweak," fellas; it would dramatically change what subjects have stand-alone Wikipedia articles, and open hundreds if not thousands of existing articles to deletion. Cbl62 and I are only two of dozens of editors who will want to voice their opinions on point; neither of us has any authority to negotiate on behalf of the impacted content creators and affected Wikiprojects, many of whom had a say in the existing consensus interpretation of NCOLLATH and the other specific NSPORTS guidelines. This is not something that will be settled by four editors on an obscure talk page. A reinterpretation of the nature advocated by Peter and Masem will require a full-blown RfC, with community wide notice to all affected WikiProjects. This is not something that can be jammed through; existing precedent and consensus do not support you. I urge both of you to think this through; there is a lot more at stake than one article the two of you don't like. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the Frequently Asked Questions menu at the top of WP:NSPORTS:

"Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?

"A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist."

I think that's relatively clear. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the point that you're ignoring is that so-called national coverage is non-enduring, human interest stories that extend from BLP1E, and thus the GNG is not met either. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you're perfectly free to make the BLP1E argument, Masem. I won't even fight it if you can get a consensus to agree with you. But turning the accepted consensus interpretation of NCOLLATH inside out in order to delete a single article is foolish and will do nothing but create instability and aggravation for everyone who works with American college sports articles and everyone who works with the NSPORTS guidelines. BTW, I really wish you would acknowledge that there is no basis in the text of the applicable guidelines regarding your "human interest story" exception. You're winging it, and you need to drop back and view the Big Picture. As law professors like to say, "Bad facts make bad law," and you're trying to twist the rules in order to achieve a single desired outcome with precious little consideration of the larger consequences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want the big picture? This guy, who just happened to be at a famous event, and happened to play college-level sports for a few years and and then stepped out of the spotlight, is a nobody in the big picture. We shouldn't have an article about him per WP:NOT/WP:IINFO. As you are trying to argue keeping it under some attempt to wiggle policy/guidelines for it, I'm explaining the broad picture that people who's primary claim to fame is being featured in human interest stories (and only that) are not notable per GNG and per BLP1E. That's the big picture. Yes, our guidelines don't explicitly say that but look at the big picture, and you'll see why we don't need an article here. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have different Big Pictures. My primary concern is a stable interpretation of NCOLLATH, not a new one that throws into question the notability of hundreds of existing college athlete articles. Yours is the suitability of Mark Dodge for inclusion as a stand-alone article because you see it as an American conflation of 9/11, the U.S. military and college sports. You don't need to reinterpret or misinterpret NCOLLATH to make that argument. If you make a good enough GNG/BLP1E argument, you may even get me to agree with you. But if you want a different interpretation of NCOLLATH, you are three or four years too late, and should have been participating in the hundreds of AfDs that gave practical meaning to the words of NCOLLATH. Its meaning is well established, and in the absence of language that explicitly says NCOLLATH trumps GNG, you've already lost that argument by not participating in the many, many AfD discussions that rejected that interpretation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this out of the way, whether the NCOLLATH (or more specifically NSPORTS) trumps the GNG is not a factor here because I will admit that the 3 national papers aren't local or routine. But in a different case, NSPORTS does override the GNG when the only sources are local or routine (which the GNG is silent on otherwise). But that's not the discussion for this AFD.
As pointed out elsewhere, we have a person that has two separate things that might be tied to notability: the 9/11 activity, and being in college sports. The latter has been proven as a non-notable career (that seems to not be in question from the above). The 9/11 activity is simply BLP1E, being someone that just happened to be there, so that's non-notable. Together, two non-notable aspects would make for a non-notable person. The only reason there's an issue is that we have three national sources that happened to pick up on this feel-good human interest story. But if those same sources existed without this person playing in college (say, the same articles but written a week after 9/11) we'd still delete the article per BLP1E. The only reason his story was picked up appears to be a human interest, and once it was covered once, there was no further coverage, therefore no enduring coverage. So therefore the GNG is failed as well as BLP1E as well as the specific criteria of NCOLLATH. Just because there are three national sources does not make the person notable due to other reasons relating to how we cover persons. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beside remaining extremely skeptical to the idea that the purpose of WP:NCOLLATH is to "provide buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources", I'm with Masem. Arguing to keep this in this case goes against some very basic principles of notability. The arguments to keep come down to pettifogging with undue bias towards sports.
Peter Isotalo 22:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One good thing has come from this debate. I've learned a new word -- pettifogging. That said, the only pettifogging or bias on display here is an anti-sport bias. GNG is GNG whether a person is a member of a boy band, a local politician, or a business executive. Peter and Masem would have athletes be subjected to a more rigorous test, presumably because they view such endeavors as less worthy. Thankfully, that is not how GNG works. As for the one event bit, a review of the actual sources shows that the coverage extends to the fact that Dodge was an outstanding player (not a failed player as Masem tried to argue before) during his playing career, so much so that he won conference honors as a linebacker. As for Peter being "extremely skeptical to the idea that the purpose of WP:NCOLLATH," the language quoted comes directly from the policy. The bottom line is that Peter and Masem seek not to follow policy and guideline but to override it, because they subjectively view Dodge as unworthy and not encyclopedic. They are certainly entitled to their opinion, but the objective policies in place, if followed, require that this article be kept. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Kim Kardashian is not BLP1E either?—Bagumba (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting she only has one "asset" of note? Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sports are already treated with more scrutiny due to the systematic bias in coverage they get. If you take off some of the controls (eg not allowing local/routine sourcing for athletes), we could have articles on every high school and college player in the United States with a bit of effort. NSPORTS was written specifically with such controls in mind, focusing more on professional athletes that have made it their career than people in passing. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's with all this belligerence and anti-sports nonsense? Did I not specify Joachim Cronman? Are we not discussing one of the most detailed and specific notability guidelines that we have? And what's with this Kardashian-and-"assets" spiel? This is getting unnecessarily ugly.
Peter Isotalo 23:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect all to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Michig (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire Road[edit]

Lancashire Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Nga Tsin Wai Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
La_Salle_Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Incomplete nomination. I would simply say I prodded this article a while back and still see no reason how it is notable and why it ought to be kept. per WP:EXISTS -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All three roads nominated above can then become redirects with the retention of cultural/historical info per WP:ROADOUTCOMES where appropriate.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book sources from Deryck[edit]

Keep all.

These would fit better in Wikivoyage than an encylopedia. Top two reasons are more valid though.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The road must be the subject of the sourced articles not an ancillary bystander to events. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia usage cannot be used to create notability. The article was in the "did you know" section but that doesn't confer any special rights to existence. The road has to be the subject in the sources not simply that a notable building stands on that road. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the namesake, is there anything significant about the road? Also, Notability is not temporary.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan: ping.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that namesake column also talks about the road a lot, both in her own writing and in interviews with other journalists e.g. [50]. And I'd say news coverage of a car crash spanning two years confers persistent (i.e. not temporary) notability. And the general application of WP:GNG is that anything that's notable for two or more independent reasons is notable. Deryck C. 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The car crash may be notable but that doesn't automatically make the road notable. The news articles in the google search linked are discussing the accident and people involved. There is no information about the road beyond the meer fact that it exists. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:53, 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) 06:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kemper[edit]

Andrew Kemper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:GNG. Furthermore, he fails WP:NHOCKEY as a 9th round draft pick who only played a season in a minor pro league. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Mateen[edit]

Justin Mateen (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:BLP1E. Subject is known only for his alleged involvement in a scandal, but no other significant coverage of him exists. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 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 deckertalk 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A previous relist apparently failed to actually move this to the correct redated list, I assume a script failure. I've manually corrected that by rerelisting and refactoring away the previous half-failed relist attempt. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:20, 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. Michig (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bee (band)[edit]

Red Bee (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)

Poorly sourced, relying entirely on primary and unreliable sources, of a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As usual, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up properly, but they're not entitled to keep an unsourced advertisement on Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:51, 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. Michig (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albania national football team campaign at the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying[edit]

Albania national football team campaign at the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying (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 think that this topic should be covered in the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group I article, no need for separate article. We do not have other articles of this kind, and I do not see why this one would be special. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same author wrote another similar article, Albania national football team campaign at the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification. Should I put that one to discussion too? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been prodded. Fenix down (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as noted above, there are several problems with the page: firstly, there is no consensus that articles covering qualifying comeptitions for individual nations are required. Secondly, there are major issues with WP:NOTSTATS, there is no sourced prose in the article and finally, as a result of the lack of sourced prose, the article is essentially just a fork of the relevant qualifying group article which has all the matches, standings and results in it. Fenix down (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with the sources is that they are merely routine match reporting. To avoid WP:NOTSTATS issues you need to use much more than this and provide sources that allow the composition of sourced prose beyond simple match reporting. This however would not address the issue that this is simply an unnecessary fork from the European championship qualifying article as there fundamentally was nothing special about Albania's campaign. Fenix down (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're all stats. Where is the sourced prose showing that this campaign received significant, reliable coverage to meet GNG outside of routine match reporting? Fenix down (talk) 06:38, 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) 06:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearview Mall (Louisiana)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Clearview Mall (Louisiana) (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN shopping mall. Has been deleted twice.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, one of the prior deletions was G6: Deleted to make way for move -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PWilkinson:, add that one sentence now, if it deserves it. --Bejnar (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sells[edit]

Scott Sells (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 unreferenced WP:BLP, written and posted by the subject himself, of a person who might pass a notability guideline if substantive coverage were there, but who certainly doesn't get an automatic presumption of notability for anything listed here. (In addition, it bears noting that an anonymous IP recently blanked the entire article — leaving only the photograph and a few empty section headers — while claiming in their edit summary that they were "editing it for compliance". Which is, needless to say, just as problematic as the article itself.) I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up, but as usual he is not entitled to keep a profile on Wikipedia to promote himself if RS coverage isn't there to support it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is why I said that I was willing to withdraw the nomination if the sourcing improved. But we don't keep every article about a writer just because you can point to commercial sites like Amazon or Barnes and Noble as proof that their books exist — we keep articles about writers only if you can point to reliable sources as proof that their writing has garnered coverage. (And by the same token, the mere fact that a person is a professor doesn't automatically get them past PROF in and of itself — you have to be able to cite reliable sources to prove that they've garnered media coverage of some kind for their academic work.) Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, a redirect should automatically be deleted if its target is deleted, and if the deleting editor misses it then it can be immediately speedied as a G8 ("redirect to a deleted page") by anybody who finds it afterward. So it's not necessary to explicitly include the redirect in the target page's AFD nomination, because if the main article gets deleted then the redirect's deletion automatically follows from that. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 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. Michig (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob H Long[edit]

Jacob H Long (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:BIO, single source, and fails WP:POLITICIAN scope_creep 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Institute of Business Productivity[edit]

Australasian Institute of Business Productivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep 00:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 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. Michig (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Also does not meet any WP:ACADEMIC criterion that I can verify with a reliable source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@101.117.141.12: am sorry to say this, if Ph.D is an ordinary entry-level qualification to academic career, what is Bachelor of Science(B.sc)(Wikicology (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
A BSc is an entry-level qualification to a a range of scientific careers below academic level. However, academics (lecturers/professors) at reputable institutions are expected to have (or be close to having) a PhD as a condition for beginning their employment. This does not make them notable (see WP:PROF). -- 101.117.57.200 (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: :@Darreg: here is not a place for nominating an article for speedy delection. Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette. I suggest you read WP:AFDEQ. And don't always based your contribution on existing arguements also read WP:NPOV (Wikicology (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Darreg has made no edits contravening the WP:CIVILITY pillar. Wikicology, you should apologise for suggesting that they have. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wikicology (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The comments above seem to say he fails WP:ACADEMIC but nobody explains how. So I'm asking for an explanation. On simple WP:GNG grounds, my google shows about 170 hits for his name, including papers published. I did a little touch up on the article, it looks like it was not written by someone with English as a primary language. There are 9 papers enumerated that this guy has written. Someone please step forward and explain how they are not significant. Unsourced? Sure seems like the google sources are reliable, they seem to show papers he's written. There are 14 sources listed in the article. I could easily add more. So someone knowledgeable in this field, please explain why this is not notable. Trackinfo (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:Prof, its Talk and archives. If you are not familiar with policy and conventions in an area it may be best to postpone editing there until study has brought greater understanding. That way you are less likely to make mistakes. You are clearly an expert in the field of athletics. It might be best to concentrate your talents there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Actually I was requesting you use . . . words. Explain how his 9 documented papers are meaningless. The publications that have published his work are unreliable. How his PHd is just a grade school education in this world . . . that the societies he is part of are insignificant. Point by point, please. Granted its not my field of expertise, I don't deal in the technicalities of WP:PROF so I'm not giving you a reflex "Keep" even though it looks like he qualifies. Instead, I am questioning why all the reflex "Deletes" with no explanation. If he's such a non-notable failure of a medical researcher, who does not deserve an article, then please explain to us, why. Trackinfo (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because gajillions of perfectly ordinary academics have PhDs, and gajillions of perfectly ordinary academics write published papers (which may or may not get cited by anybody). For notability WP:PROF requires more than just being a run-of-the-mill academic (just as WP:ATHLETE specifies that not all sportspeople are notable). There are several categories of "more" in WP:PROF, such as notable awards or significant impact of research (most commonly demonstrated by having an h-index of about 20 or more). WP:PROF spells all this out in detail (and you should read that document before !voting here). The people !voting "delete" are all experienced editors with a long history of applying the policies in WP:PROF. Calling the "delete" !votes "reflex" is unjustified and a breach of WP:CIVIL. -- 101.117.110.81 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article don't have to meet all criteria.Wikicology (talk) 17:23, 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.
More