The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Seymour (politician)[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. Schwede66 23:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)-gadfium 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. There is already a heap of coverage of him which is not surprising at all, as he is the #1 candidate for a seat which is once again a key battleground electorate during the election this year. I'm in a way sort of kinda the "creator" of this article, After I saw the WP:AfC request from a new user at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Seymour (Politician). So I made it and added a bunch more references, as there is lots of coverage of the Epsom selection in news articles, opinion columns, and tv coverage. This gives a quick overview of the coverage prior to his selection: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11194914 To give a specific example from one of the many news articles, here is one to read which goes into who he is: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11195793 Mathmo ^Talk 00:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. There seems to be plenty of refs about him. Ollieinc (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - yes, and that is unsurprising. The same will be true about the vast majority of candidates of the parties already in Parliament, but that doesn't make them notable. Basic notability for people is defined as having "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This person is a long way off meeting those requirements. Schwede66 06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - you can't just lump this guy into the same category as any other random candidate for the other parliamentary parties (because yes I agree, most of them are not yet worthy of a wikipedia article according the current widespread interpretation of "notability"). A somewhat vaguely closer comparison would be with a candidate who gets selected for a safe seat for that party, and thus is most likely going to become an MP (unlike most candidates who stand). However even that comparison I'd feel is still many orders of magnitude off from correct, as he is the number one key candidate for a party that apparently they're resting all their hopes on (or so it seems from the media reports), and in an electorate that is already getting a huge amount of media attention on because it is an electorate that is going to (probably?) determine the next PM of NZ and this person is the number one ranking candidate in the race by a long way. Mathmo ^Talk 10:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"There seems to be plenty of refs" doesn't asses the quality of the sources. per WP:V Wikipedia should cite third party, reliable sources (i.e. not ACT website or right-wing blogs like Whale Oil and Kiwiblog). Adabow (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The blogs are themselves citing news articles, though I can include those too directly in the article. And did you go through all the references already there? Such as say these for instance: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11194914 & http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11195793 Mathmo ^Talk 05:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge I don't think he is notable by himself at this stage. There is merit merging this with the Act Party article. Maybe a stand alone article if he wins the electorate after the election, but not before. NealeFamily (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Maybe" a standalone article if he wins the electorate?? :-/ I'm astonished anybody could view it like that, as without a doubt if he wins the election he is worthy of a standalone article. Not ifs, maybes, or buts about it. I think maybe you're forgetting the significance of his electorate and this election. Mathmo ^Talk 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - if he were to be returned as an MP, he would meet notability requirements, as MPs are inherently notable. No question about that. Schwede66 06:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Sorry to create some excitement with the loose use of the maybe - you are both right he would get his own article. NealeFamily (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Considering the amount of media attention on ACT in the past month, I thought I would be !voting keep, but after a web search there isn't much out there about Seymour in the way of third party, reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Has significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Candidate for a seat that is likely to be very high profile, and already has a lot of references. Lot of people will be searching for information about candidate from this electorate, and that's only likely to increase even more as the election gets closer. Could even decided the election result. Peteremcc (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Hello, I'm the user who originally tried to create this article, and my original version had references, but I'd like to thank the Wikipedia community for then making this page and adding in so many many more references!,Unlike other candidates in New Zealand elections the Epsom Candidate has already attracted a large ammount of attention that is why i started this article Antthecomjunkie (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Substantial references, and likely to be a high profile candidate, pivotal to the makeup of NZ's next parliament Hydroksyde (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of references, and this is a very significant election. Jords12 (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tadd Roosevelt[edit]

Tadd Roosevelt (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)

Cannot find multiple reliable sources can be found that cover this man in depth, therefore failing WP:N and WP:GNG guidelines. Nothing notable about him is mentioned, either. The only sources that do talk about him only mention him briefly or are simply things like birth/death records. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. The "further reading" item of a New York Times article, available here, is significantly about him, including interestingly judgmental views about the perils of growing up with wealth. The current article mentions but does not explain scandal that contributed to his taking a low path in life relative to similarly educated Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Quite a story might be told, likely has been written. I think it's useful to have the article covering this person in Wikipedia, who must show up as a minor character in important biographical books about FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, and other Roosevelts and Astors. Having the Wikipedia article allows readers of those biographies to look up what happened to this person. The article could/should be further developed. I think the New York Times article itself is significant coverage. --doncram 00:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However significant of coverage that article might be, WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources that go in depth to be notable enough for an article. Perhaps I underestimated the depth of that New York Times entry, but there isn't much that goes into him extensively. Biographies of Astors and Roosevelts that I've found only mention him briefly if at all. If more could be found on the mentioned scandal, by all means add it. However, I searched extensively and found little to nothing. The article you linked about Sadie being charged with slander only briefly mentions him, so while it does help indicate their relationship status it doesn't establish him as notable. I also reviewed the sources, and they don't support any scandal. We also need to know what he was noted for, whether he was a socialite, businessman, politician, philanthropist, banker, criminal, actor, author, con artist, or anything. His Astor-Roosevelt affiliations alone aren't enough. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well you see i've added some other New York Times archive items, though I didn't include all info from them and did not resolve all discrepancies vs. info that was in the article (some of which you've removed, in edit conflicts with me). I think the scandal might have been simply that he got involved with Sadie, then quit Harvard and married her, variously reported as when he was a freshman at Harvard and when he was a senior at Harvard. Compare this article vs. that for his father, James Roosevelt Roosevelt. The father, as Secretary of the Navy, is more obviously notable, but the father article has even less sourcing. There's a link for Roosevelt family papers. I expect that there is plenty of sourcing available about both, with substantial primary sources and with secondary sources in biographical books. The New York Times archive is just what I happen to be able to search fairly easily right now; the other sources would be off-line. I stay with "Keep" vote on this basis, and again think both these articles are useful. --doncram 01:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think there exist some commentary, similar to this March 16, 2005 New York Times article about "Roosevelts and the Quirks of Destiny", by Joseph Berger, about different paths taken by grandchildren of FDR & Eleanor, about Tadd vs. FDR & others of their generation, too. --doncram 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've definitely had more luck on finding info on Tadd than I have, that's for sure. Sorry for any edit conflicts, though. As reliable as New York Times is, we should probably include other sources in addition if this article is to be kept. Also, the link you just provided is actually not talking about Tadd, but one of FDR and Eleanor's grandsons. As for father Rosey, he is definitely more notable and worthy of keeping, but I haven't got around to finding more sources for him yet. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the "Quirks" article is about a later set of Roosevelt descendents, not including Tadd, as I tried to indicate upfront. My comment that there likely would exist some commentary about Tadd vs. FDR & others, in the same vein as the Quirks article, is speculation / an educated guess by me. --doncram 02:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps there is. If you can find it, feel free to add. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Properly sourced. Historically notable person. That the nom isn't able to find sources speaks more to the ability of the nom, and his sense of ownership of Roosevelt- and Kenndy-related articles, than it does to the notability of the subject. BMK (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historically notable..... for what, exactly? Also, I have never tried to own articles..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't you read the article? It makes it quite clear what his historical notability is. Almost as clear as your ownership behavior. Are you trying to get rid of this article because the subject is a blot on the escutcheon of the Roosevelt family you obviously very much admire? BMK (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I have read the article. No, I am not trying to get rid of "blots". This was nominated for deletion because it did not explain what exactly he was known for other than his family affiliations. For example, what was his profession? What was he noted for in society (other than being an Astor and a Roosevelt)?? There have been additions regarding him being arrested, so perhaps he was known for involvement with crimes/scandals. If this is the case, his controversies need to be expanded. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability can take many forms, and does not require extensive information about every aspect of a person's life. Many articles on scientists, for instance, have little or no mention of their personal lives. Some people -- we call them celebrities -- can be notable just for being well-known. Tadd Roosevelt falls into that category, somewhat, because of his family connections, his personal activities and the obvious interest people had in what he was doing, or did, at the time he was alive. We don't have to know everything there is to know about him to consider him to be notable enough for an article, nor do we have to think he was a good person or valuable person or a well-rounded one ("notability" is not a judgment about worth), we just have to know that something about his life fulfills the notability requirements. BMK (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure many aspects of people's personal lives remain unknown to the public. As for "being notable for being well-known", was he perhaps a well-known socialite like his grandmother Lina? Was he involved in any high-profile controversies (not too sure how high-profile his relationship with Sadie was) like other relatives he had were?? As previously indicated, family affiliations alone are not enough to meet notability criteria per WP:INHERIT. If he was noted for any activities, those need expansion. Also, WP:BLP1E indicates that being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - properly sourced, and obviously notable in his day. Once notable, always thus so. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But what exactly was he notable for? Socialite?? Con artistry??? High-profile Controversy???? Family affiliations alone aren't enough to make someone notable...... we need to state in the article what he was noted for other than being an Astor and a Roosevelt. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Socialite was a job back then! Seriously ... if half the famous for being famous people were eliminated, WP would be a much more boring place. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps I should've stated my question differently. I simply was asking if he was known as a socialite or con artist or something. I was by no means saying socialites aren't notable, especially given how his grandmother Lina Astor was a prominent socialite, and his first cousins Ava and Jakey Astor were also well-known socialites (with Jakey being the famous "Titanic baby" and getting involved in an estate controversy with his sister-in-law Brooke over Vincent Astor's will). If he was a socialite, this needs to be sourced. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sheares Avenue[edit]

Sheares Avenue (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 road. Fails WP:GNG. Notability not established Flat Out let's discuss it 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. No sources to indicate any notability. Indeed, the history section appears to indicate the opposite is true. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep  As the article says, this is an artery.  I added two refs to the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - We don't need articles for individual roads unless extremely notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bedok North Avenue 3[edit]

Bedok North Avenue 3 (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 a notable road Fails WP:GNG. Notability not established Flat Out let's discuss it 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. No indication this road is notable as a standalone topic. Notability is not inherited from the presence of otherwise notable buildings, such as schools. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete  wp:notability is a measure of attention that a topic attracts from the world at large.  For public roads, map makers including Google report locations on maps, and government agencies respond if a road is not passable.  Google maps [1] shows that this is a major connector in the area.  The problem here is that there are no references and the claims made are indistinguishable from WP:OR.  If someone fixes the WP:OR and WP:V problems in the current article, or wants to Userfy or Incubate, I will change my !vote accordingly.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 'Comment Would an American road of similar size be kept? --Hildanknight (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Without any sources or any indication of notability, no. I see no evidence of systemic bias here. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - We don't need articles for individual roads unless extremely notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harriet Knor Foundation for Cancer Research Inc.[edit]

Harriet Knor Foundation for Cancer Research Inc. (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)

blatantly fails WP:ORG. most of the article is based on its own website. created by a single purpose editor. nothing in gbooks despite 9 years of existence. nothing in major canadian broadcaster www.cbc.ca LibStar (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buffbills7701 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 23:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Worthy cause? Yes. Notable organization? No. I found nothing to indicate notability. Not even close. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RTL (French radio)#Programming. j⚛e decker^talk 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Le Journal Inattendu[edit]

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

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

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 23:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect. (changed from "Delete"). In the French Wikipedia there are a number of hits on the topic (see search results on "Le Journal Inattendu") but there is not a separate article. So I would tend to agree that an English language wikipedia article is not needed, and this is not sourced. --doncram 23:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Per Hobbes Goodyear, redirecting to RTL (French radio)#Programming seems fine. Article can be recreated from redirect, with edit history intact, if/when sourcing is found for a more substantial article. --doncram 00:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to RTL (French radio), the article for its radio station, where it is already listed. I suspect that if I read the language and French RS's weren't so heavily paywalled, I could demonstrate notability, but, as it is, I've come up short. Many hits, but little substantially about the subject. This brief piece in Le JDD is about as good as it gets: notes its 45-year history, million-listener audience, and status as an "institution de RTL". If someone can find better sourcing, now or in future, I'd be happy to reconsider. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rockin' Rebel[edit]

Rockin' Rebel (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 notable wrestler. He wrestled in minor promotions without major impact. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - his career section has no sources. Sure he's (apparently) won a lot of titles but how many of those titles even have Wikipedia articles? That's because the titles are those of (very) minor promotions. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The article sucks, but can be fixed. He had a solid indy career and name value, when that counted for more than it does since the Internet. Helped get ECW rolling, something like Tommy Cairo, and worked steady for 25 years (and counting). Just needs work. Fun fact: Only guy trained by both of The Rock'n'Roll Express. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think so. He had 37 matches in CZW, most of them before 2004 (Again, we don't have articles for every single wrestler who performed in CZW. Even some champions haven't articles) ECW, he had 46, but in minor events most of them and looks like he hadn't storyline or feud. I mean, the article, without the super-minor promotions, only says "he had a few matches in ECW", "he had a few matches in CZW", nothing more. Also, there is no reliable sources to suport the article. Also, if the article'll stay as it's right now, I'll prefer to delete it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also worked for ROH, 3PW, Big Japan and JCW (not super minor), jobbed in WWF in 1989 and WCW in 1995. He regularly challenged for the ECW TV title, around the time Douglas got the "Extreme" buzz rolling, and appeared on many of the most famous shows from that era (The Night the Line was Crosed, Ultimate Jeopardy, Heat Wave). It sure would help if the article said this, yes. Not so motivated to do it myself, but maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Is significant enough to be notable. He has been mentioned in numerous books including [2] and [3] and significant independent coverage in local reliable sources; [4][5]. Seems to be enough to meet WP:GNG and that was just three minutes of searching.STATic message me! 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It took me three minutes just to find this. So at least the best man is no mystery. Good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, can somebody fix it? I mean, 99% of the time "article sucks, but somebody can improve it", nobody impove the article. The article keeps in Wikipedia and stills suck.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rome wasn't built in a day, and Yokozuna was once somewhat lean himself. But yes, somebody should. Maybe my "best man" suggestion was a little too subtle. Or maybe I should do it myself. I'm just not so much a builder as a sculptor. I'll probably unsuck the grammar later today, and add a bit of meat. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The grammar's actually not bad. Just that "Trademark (TM)" thing misled me. I'll do that right now. Baby steps. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toby Klein[edit]

Toby Klein (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 notable wrestler. He wrestled in minor promotions without major impact. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - his career has zero sources. Only wrestled in minor promotions on the independent circuit. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatch[edit]

Autopatch (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:WORLDWIDE, WP:RS, no reliable sources, WP:OR, this article should not exist. If it is a jargon term in the US then so be it, but there is not an article on "Stilsons" or "Rawlplugs". Got here from WP:RfD as there is a redirect here to it but have to sort one before the other. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• KEEP Ridiculous to even suggest that this should be deleted. I'm sure that amateur radio operators in many other countries have done the same thing, regardless of what they call it. Considering there are over 1.2 million results for the word on Google, this is certainly not something unknown. I will also point out that Stilson wrench is a redirect from a brand name to the more general pipe wrench, and Rawlplug redirects to Rawlplug Ltd, a maker of wall plugs. These two are simply examples of genericized trademarks, while autopatch is not a trademark at all, and describes a unique type of device/invention on its own.  –radiojon (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. This spun out of an RfA I opened, and I'm just as mystified as @Radiojon: as to why anybody would think this article should be deleted. I added a citation to the ARRL page which talks about this. The article could certainly use cleaning up, and better referencing, but the ARRL should at least qualify as a WP:reliablesource. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Sensible to have an article describing this equipment. --doncram 23:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep although renaming to phone patch would better suit clarity and internationalisation. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Note that the redirect at phone patch is up for deletion too: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_2#Phone_patch. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy Keep as proposer. It came to RFD first (the redirect for phone patch) and thence I listed Autopatch, its target, here. Coming with clean hands I linked the two together so other editors could have an easy reference from one to the other.

Since it is obviously a strong keep and seems to have a lot of consensus to be so, I think this should be closed as speedy keep. Si Trew (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way at RFD, although the sidebar and Twinkle etc says "Redirects for Deletion", they are there for discussion not deletion. Quite a few get kept, retarget and so on. That is how these kind of things get worked out with discussion by good-faith editors, I am not sitting here knitting while the guillotine falls. Si Trew (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Lussier[edit]

David Lussier (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)

Delete due to lack of notability. Film producer, director, and screenwriter. All films are created for his website or available for download at various sites. I cleaned up the article and tried to find reliable and independent sources to support notability, but it was fruitless. Essentially, all sources are download sites of his films. No reliable or independent sites actually discuss the subject in any significant manner. Article does not establish notability in accordance with the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for directors. Cindy(talk) 22:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - I'm unable to find evidence that this person meets WP:CREATIVE at this time.  Gong show 18:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete No evidence that subject meets relevant guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Unsure - it may be useful as a dab page. There may be more than one such marginally notable person with the same name. Take a gander at Google. FWIW, I know one such David Lussier. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep Some movies had theatrical release ("The day before" box office gross http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383440/business) or screened at film festivals. However, no awards or major reviews to his credit. --174.88.57.125 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC) — 174.88.57.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Per your ref, The Day Before grossed $146k Canadian. This is consistent with subject's lack of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:CREATIVE, and no one disagrees. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trey Hearne[edit]

Trey Hearne (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)

AfD led to a keep five years ago, but I think we should revisit it. Google Newspapers search yields nothing. The one Springfield News-Leader source may be the only one to contribute to GNG, since scout.com sources are middling at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Coverage is typical routine baseball coverage for the minor leagues. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Kind of surprised this article has lasted as long as it has. Alex (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Not notable minor league player....William 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Stilley Carpenter[edit]

John Stilley Carpenter (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 page has been tagged as not meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies since 2011, and I agree. I think it is time to delete this page. While Carpenter may be an interesting in a genealogical way, he is not noteworthy as leader in the LDS Church (there are hundreds of thousands of Bishop) nor is he noteworthy as a Utah pioneer (there are hundreds of thousands of Utah Pioneers). Unless someone can improve this page quickly it should be deleted. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete here [6] is a link to his entry in Andrew Jenson's LDS biographical encyclopedia. Some early bishops functioned as local judges, but I think that had phased out by the time he was bishop. He was head of the Glendale Irrigation Company and on the school board, but considering the size of Glendale, Utah that is not enough. This is not a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• STRONG KEEP - We have an individual of minor historical importance listed in a LDS Biographical Encyclopedia about 1901 or so and again in 1913 in Pioneers and prominent men of Utah. In 2009 he is noted in the O.N.E On-line Nevada Encyclopedia regarding The Muddy Mission. The subject has also been mentioned in Daughters of the Utah Pioneer Magazine a few times (1949 & 1968 and maybe more - it is a hard search). In 2013 an article is posted on line about [John Stilley Carpenter 1849 - 1925] and while this is a secondary type reference, it shows continued interest in the person. In reviewing several genealogical sites, he shows quite a few times, but that is incidental.
  WP:Bio This person meets the minimal requirements for WP notability. For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.
  WP:ANYBIO 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. IE Such as being a pioneer or bishop or both and being historically documented.
  Please remember certain positions considered today as trivial, must be seen from the historical perspective. The community of Glendale (Berryville) Utah failed on its first attempt. This person helped the re-settlement of Glendale. The irrigation effort was the life-blood of the community and their farming economy. The lack of water (and Navajo conflict) helped cause the first settlement to fail. What the subject did then had an impact today. The same for the school board to a lesser degree. Glendale today is much larger and robust today that when it was first re-settled. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep -- The subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29, which states: "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." The article has reliable sources per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS that provide significant coverage. Why take down a perfectly good article and reduce Wikipedia's span of coverage of people from all walks of life? Cohee (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - This nomination seems to smack of recentism, in other words it seems like the complaint is that the Google test doesn't work. I'll also note that comparing the current prominence of an LDS Bishop in the 21st Century is not the same as what it was like in the 19th Century where congregations were much larger in many cases. In this case you could make a comparison that being a bishop in Glendale was comparable to being mayor at the time in terms of social prominence. Still, the rationale for notability is more that of a founding settler of a particular town in Utah which most certainly is notable by itself. The point is that he is an important historical figure for southern Utah, hence notability concerns are met. I would also suggest that an exhaustive search of available sources has not been done with regards to this individual either. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that at no time has Glendale been a significant enough place that being mayor of it will make a person notable. I will point out the claim "there are hundreds of thousands of bishops" is not fully correct. At present there are just under 30,000 wards and branches, the total number of LDS bishops ever might exceed 100,000, but there were not nearly so many in the 19th-century. Still, we have never agreed that they all merit having an article. Not even all 19th-century stake presidents merit articles, although since many also served as members of territorial legislatures and the like they often do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are missing the point. Just using the LDS Biographical Encyclopedia (about 1901)and Pioneers and prominent men of Utah (1913) did not come to even half of the some 900 or so Bishops estimated to have served from 1848 to 1900. They had to meet more than one criteria to make those books. Rinky Dink town mayor/bishops were not included by themselves. It is the combination of pioneer (twice in this case), bishop, leader and such that made the subject notable in history and documented by others before us. I agree with user Robert Horning above that the article in question is just a stub or start of what might be found on the subject. I have changed by postion from KEEP to STRONG KEEP. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Only volume 1 of the Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia can legitimately be used to establish notability, as volumes 2 and 3 were at least partially vanity publications, where people could pay for placement of text and pictures. As for Pioneers and Prominent Men of Utah, criteria for inclusion was in part that the person have immigrated to Utah between 24 July 1847 & 30 December 1868, qualifying them as Mormon pioneers; there are many people in this category that are not notable to WP standards. The "Prominent" criteria was only for those that came to Utah after the railroad, which Carpenter did not (came to Utah in 1857). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, per Jrcrin001's research and comments (i am not checking, but maybe this was since added to the article; the article might now be in better form than when nominated). Seems interesting/important, and there are multiple sources specifically about him. --doncram 23:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jehovahson Alghar[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability WP:N. Sources generally fail WP:RS. Those that don't seem have little relation to the subject of the article. The article is likely an autobiographical WP:PROMO by a WP:SPA. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:BLP. There are one or two reliable sources but that doesn't mention the subject even once. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RCW Heavyweight Championship[edit]

RCW Heavyweight Championship (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 notable minor championship. The promotion was deleted previously. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - yeah, if the promotion is not notable enough to have an article, how can its championship be more notable? Zero mentions of this championship in F4Wonline, SLAM!, PWTorch, Wrestleview and PWInsider. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete If the promotion isn't notable then how could the championship be notable?LM2000 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RCW Cruiserweight Championship[edit]

RCW Cruiserweight Championship (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 notable minor championship. The promotion was deleted previously. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - yeah, if the promotion is not notable enough to have an article, how can its championship be more notable? Zero mentions of this championship in F4Wonline, SLAM!, PWTorch, Wrestleview and PWInsider. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete If the promotion isn't notable then how could the championship be notable?LM2000 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RCW Tag Team Championship[edit]

RCW Tag Team Championship (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 notable minor championship. The promotion was deleted previously. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete The company that the championship represents in up for speedy deletion. Even if that company was notable, WP:NOTINHERITED, as this fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just for the record, the main article has now been deleted.LM2000 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - yeah, if the promotion is not notable enough to have an article, how can its championship be more notable? Zero mentions of this championship in F4Wonline, SLAM! and PWTorch. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland[edit]

William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland (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 following link to this supposed person has now been deleted from article Fitz: "Anthony Trollope's 1862 novel Orley Farm which features the fictional rakishly aristocratic figure Lord John Fitzjoly". Jolly/Bowland appear to be part of a connected series of hoax articles. Lord John Fitzjoly was a fictional character in Trollope's book.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

• Comment - I completed the nom, copying the rationale from the talk page of the article. ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: I repeat my query/comment on the article's talk page: "Does this pseudonymous character merit an article? I also cannot help wondering (with a view to WP:YOURSELF) whether User:Manorial, the creator of this article and its principal contributor, is perhaps "the Lord" himself. And might Stephen Jolly be a further alias?)"45ossington (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see LORDSHIP OF BOWLAND. William Bowland is not a fictional character. (UTC)

• Delete - for those who might be confused this "lordship" does not in fact give the title holder a position in the peerage of the United Kingdom, and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. The rest of it is really slightly embarrassing. If properly identified, the subject might meet WP:PROF but without positive identity it's impossible to tell. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Feudal lords who are not members of the House of Lords are not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. As written, minimal notability, and the referencing is very poor (the links I've tried don't seem to contain the information claimed). Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. The article is clearly self-promotional and pure fantasy. If I may slightly alter the point made above so as not to set a precedent: Feudal barons are of very great historical interest, of great rarity and are certainly notable, for example the Berkeley family of Berkeley Castle who have been feudal lords of Berkeley for many centuries, but have only recently lost their separate peerage title Baron Berkeley to a female line. However, purported feudal and manorial titles "bought off the shelf" for a couple of thousand pounds by a fantasist are of no legal or historical validity and are of no interest to anyone other that the persons who buy them. WP is not the place for such self-promoters. Such fantasy articles sourced from self-submitted press-releases to free-copy-hungry local newspapers and self generated "official websites" are worthless, and detract from the many valuable articles on such topics sourced from serious historical publications. I suspect the article Stephen Jolly too has little basis in reality, and that this supposed person is also user:manorial and the self-proclaimed lord of Bowland. The message manorial left on my talk page 6 March certainly suggests he has some "inside info" on this hoax: Stephen William Jolly, a Cambridge don, is Lord of the Forest of Bowland, according to the Manorial Society. He is known as "William Bowland" within the Forest (check with the Forest Archive at Slaidburn; contact Helen Wallbank). His son, Henry, has the name "Fitzjoly" as William Bowland's natural child. Please check facts before proposing deletion! Manorial. Fitzjoly happens to be a fictional character in Anthony Trollope's 1862 novel Orley Farm. Coincidence? Fantasy, not facts, thus not suitable for WP. I support deletion of this article. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • I'm striking the vote, not because it's not valid, but because you're technically the nominator, so it's a duplicate. ₆an⁶sh₆ 09:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hunter Ansley Wryn[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - roles to date to not meet WP:ENT, and there does not appear to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG.  Gong show 20:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Roles are only bit parts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Connor Dylan Wryn[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - roles to date to not meet WP:ENT, and there does not appear to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG.  Gong show 20:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Roles are only bit parts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sean Francis (writer)[edit]

Sean Francis (writer) (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)

Unsourced BLP, although if you check the history there used to be a single reference about his daughter. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker^talk 19:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete I have not been able to fund evidence that either this writer or his "best known" book are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete The "best known" book is self published through Lulu which for a fee will list on B&N and Amazon websites. Other than that can't find anything. -- GreenC 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piedmontese Wikipedia[edit]

Piedmontese 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) 18:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. The fact that there are 57,000 articles could be challenged, but has not been challenged. It's a new article, appropriately tagged for addition of sources. I have to believe that this is notable, and that there is coverage in Piedmont and Italy, in Italian and Piedmontese, of this Wikipedia. Let it develop.--doncram 23:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • "I have to believe"? Can you prove that this article meets WP:GNG or not?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, it seems that other language wikipedias have English entries, I can't see a reason why this one would be any different.Bali88 (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their deletion nomination and there are no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ivaylo Brusovski[edit]

Ivaylo Brusovski (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 subject is notable according to WP:CREATIVE, WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO. Even his IMDB is almost empty: it says he directed one film, is filming another, and had a minor role in a Sam Mendes film. Can't find substantial coverage of him online using English or Bulgarian spelling: references given only make passing mention of him in local theater and film work. Ruby Murray 18:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article about one of his films, which makes no indication of why the film is notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (films). I can also find no substantial coverage of it online:

Veseto and the black and white happiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ruby Murray 18:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• Keep While we're not likely to find much English language coverage on a Bulgarian filmmaker whose main body of works were done in Bulgaria and without English-language release, searching under the proper spelling of his name appears to show notability under WP:FILMMAKER is met and the article sourcable with a bit of work with translation.[7] His body of work under WP:CREATIVE appears verifiable, and I am not at all impressed by a claim of non-notability due to an "unreliable" IMDB not listing this Bulgarian filmmaker's works. WP:CSB anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Allow me to clarify: I certainly wasn't saying that IMDB should be used as a yardstick for notability, quite the opposite. As noted above, I did search for his name in both Bulgarian and English, and what came back was mostly in Bulgarian. This was mostly brief mentions of his name in long lists of directors at film festivals. I could find no substantial pieces about him: just passing mentions. However that search link you provided above did turn up this and this and this. I'm not sure what went wrong when I tried to search yesterday, but it looks as if I might need to withdraw the nomination. Ruby Murray 15:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Appreciate your reconsidering. Well done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn - MichaelQSchmidt is right - there's substantial coverage about him in what appears to be WP:RS in Bulgarian, and he appears to be nationally known there. Still can't quite understand how I missed those references the first time I searched, but there it is. I'll make amends by improving the referencing of the article using the references found. Ruby Murray 10:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nandor Guelmino[edit]

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - did manage two top tier fights but both were losses. Not likely to make three. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Lost both of his top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VloggerFair[edit]

VloggerFair (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. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete  This is the kind of non-notable that is covered by WP:Deletion policy.  In Google searches it is hard to find anything at all from after the event.  [8] is an exception, but there is no indication of lasting effects.  Google news has literally nothing for either "VloggerFair" or "Vlogger Fair".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, last year was the first year of the event. However, major companies like Yelp, Ford, and Intel sponsored the event. Google news has nothing, but try doing a regular Google search. Not all news websites are indexed in Google news.Dnywlsh (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Please see also the 2nd and 3rd sentences of my post.  Except for the one article, everything else I found was promotional efforts from before the event, which are covered at least in part by the policies WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:CRYSTAL.  Even if a few local media had picked up the story, this would still be a problem with the policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  Beyond that, the notability guideline WP:EFFECTS is an issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 03:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gatineau city councillors[edit]

Luc Montreuil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pierre Philion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alain Pilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Louise Poirier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Simon Racine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alain Riel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Denis Tassé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding consensus, city councillors are not notable enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN in most cases, except for two specific circumstances: (a) the city is a major, internationally famous "world city" with a population approaching or above a million people (and even then, this criterion extends only to that city itself, not to smaller cities within its metropolitan area — so the fact that Gatineau happens to be adjacent to Ottawa, a city which does meet this criterion, does not boost the notability of Gatineau's city councillors beyond that of any other city the size of Gatineau itself), or (b) the person has established notability for something more than just being a city councillor alone (e.g. going on to serve in the federal or provincial legislatures; emerging as a national or international spokesperson on a political issue; or passing a different notability rule, such as the ones for writers, sports figures or businesspeople.) None of these people actually meet either standard, however; all six are "notable" only as city councillors in a city not large enough for its city councillors to count as notable.

Additionally, most of these articles cite only primary sources (i.e. the city's own website) which cannot demonstrate notability at all, while a few cite only local news coverage which fails to demonstrate that they've gotten past point b above. Either way, none of them are sufficiently sourced to demonstrate that the person has actually gotten past WP:POLITICIAN in any substantive way. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Local councillors rarely have notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Gatineau City Council already exists and that is sufficient. I suppose we could redirect some of the titles there - the more "popular" I looked at get 10-20 hits a week. But that decision can be made later at an editorial level. For now, deletion is fine. Stalwart111 11:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Members of city councils are only very rarely notable as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to use ((Db-disambig)) in the future for cases like this. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Koji Ogata (disambiguation)[edit]

Koji Ogata (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)

Per WP:2DABS. Hatnote on primary is in place; this pg is superfluous. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not sure the artist is the primary topic. I suggest moving the dab page to Koji Ogata instead. --Kusunose 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: unnecessary dab page. PamD 15:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment User:Kusunose, thanks for your opinion, can you explain your reasoning and back it up with viewing figures etc.? Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 19:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raytown Police Department[edit]

Raytown Police Department (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)

Small city (30,000 population) police dept. No possible notability . No non local reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak Keep. The source "Raytown Police Department: The First 60 Years (1950-2010), by Ret. Sgt. Bruce T. Varner, (2011)" seems to be significant. Yes it is local, and to be used with care, but it sounds like legitimate documentation, and there are other sources used, too. --doncram 17:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

giventhe authorship, I doubt it is independent. It seems to be privately printed, and is in a total of two libraries. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Raytown is a major suburb of Kansas City, Missouri. Not the biggest, but lots of business there. LionMans Account (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Nice article with decent sources, but how is it notable outside of Raytown? Why isn't merging appropriate? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge as suggested, without prejudice to later re-creation. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. A small city has a police department. I assume that they also have a fire department, an ambulance service, waterworks, a road department, sanitation, etc., etc. *To their credit*, this PD seems to have generated no substantial, independent coverage at all from any reliable source. It's like a well-done genealogy of a nice family with no notable members, and I am unwilling to expand our scope to this degree. I would agree with merge, but I don't see anything worth transferring over, and redirect unnecessary. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as, oh, i don't even know what to call it. Police-cruft? Pictures of the shoulder insignia? Such scintillating text as, The elected marshal of the City of Raytown is responsible for the operation of the RPD? Perhaps we could find out if the marshal has a dog, and if so, what breed (reliably sourced, of course)? I know I'm supposed to keep my arguments to wiki-policy, but this stuff is just absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Userfy to User:Btvarner/Raytown Police Department and then delete the article. The level of work that has been put into this article is admirable, but the Raytown PD isn't notable enough. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete non notable Secret ^account 19:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rudrakoti[edit]

Rudrakoti (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 local shrine. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - we could consider transwiki-ing to Wikivoyage or something but I can't see how this has a place here. Stalwart111 11:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crossfire Wrestling[edit]

Crossfire Wrestling (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)

Unsourced, not notable, minor independent promotion HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete The only reliable coverage I've found only details the company's closure... I don't think that's a good thing.LM2000 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - article has 1 primary source and 0 secondary sources. With the company being inactive it's not going to become more notable in the near future. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robbie Mireno[edit]

Robbie Mireno (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 notable wrestler. His career is 3 lines. He never wrestled in major promotions and haven't notable roles at independent promotions. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - a wrestler with minor success in minor promotions is not notable. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Substantial (rapper)[edit]

Substantial (rapper) (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 has no reliable independent sources to substantiate the claims to notability, which are in any case weak. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete absent actual reliable sources being found - he has no substantial impact on the international music scene from assiduous searching, but maybe there are strong Japanese sources? Collect (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please review the account, the article has references sources from sites such as VH1, and MTV. Substantial is an important person as a performer and activist, and the numerous sources back that up. Enough information has been compiled from 3rd party media including magazine scans. I believe this page was nominated due to another user removing a large majorit of the information.Peace In Mississippi (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep easily passes the low wiki notability guide of wp:gng with the current external reports. Looks like revenge deletion here , where anon users here seem to hate any editing by real life people attempting to improve their bios and if they catch on to that the wiki users attack and if possible the anon wiki users delete the article altogether.Mosfetfaser (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This AfD page is for discussing the article only, and not any theories about Wikipedia cabals. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, as I said, Keep easily passes the low wiki notability guide of wp:gng with the current external reports. Mosfetfaser (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Might you name some of the reliable sources making him notable? I assure you facebook, WP:SPS and commercial sites selling records do not actually qualify for the purpose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

• Weak-ish Keep. This guy is reasonably well known in underground hip-hop circles, so I'm surprised I couldn't find much in the way of really decent coverage, but I think he still meets WP:MUSICBIO through the independent coverage that I did find: [9][10][11][12]. — sparklism ^hey! 14:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And a couple more: [13][14]. — sparklism ^hey! 14:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you feel "okayplayer.com" meets WP:RS? It looks like a blog from over here. Collect (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. Okayplayer is a bit more than a blog; in the hip-hop world they're a pretty big deal. Here is their staff team page (at least one of whom has an article here). I did a quick G-search for "okayplayer reports" and turned up a couple of hits: Spin [15], Fact [16] and (ahem) East Bay Express [17]. So other (reputable, reliable) sites seem to consider them reliable. Granted, I'm not overwhelmed by that, but I think it's enough for them to be considered reliable here. — sparklism ^hey! 19:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per the sources provided by User:Sparklism; there appears to be (just) enough coverage to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO.  Gong show 01:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jubilee Debt Coalition[edit]

Jubilee Debt Coalition (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)

Very promotional article; the article for the USA equivalent, was jut deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jubilee USA Network DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason

Jubilee Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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)} 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep -- This was a very notable and successful campaign. Unfortunately, some of the implementation of its achievements may have been less satsifactory. Notability is not temporary. Possibly the organisation might be merged with its campaign, but plain deletion should not be an option. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment It could be merged to Jubilee 2000 in preference to deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UCLA Women's Rugby[edit]

UCLA Women's Rugby (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 with lack of coverage in WP:Independent sources. PROD was contested, adding a reference from Daily Bruin, UCLA's student newspaper, which is not independent. This is an intramural sports club, generally not receiving coverage like college sports at National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) level. —Bagumba (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Club team with no indication of notability or significant independent coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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)} 09:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the IP editor but I think that there isn't a single reliable source to make a club team notable at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge/redirect to UCLA Bruins#Rugby. Not separately notable, but deserves a mention at the UCLA sports page. If the result here is redirect, I will undertake to carry out the merge. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Without WP:INDY coverage, mention at a redirect seems promotional and not advisable.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Space Desia[edit]

Space Desia (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 reliable sources listed. A quick google search turned up no news about the band or their songs.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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)} 09:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, does not meet requirements, nor does it meet WP:GNG. Google search turned up nothing at all. Quoting from NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." mikeman67 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. I don't think there's any reason why this information cannot be listed on the band's main page. Bali88 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]