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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete this article. A merge does not have strong support either, and the keep arguments are more convincing. However, a dedicated discussion may prove fruitful.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1921–22 famine in Tatarstan[edit]

1921–22 famine in Tatarstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod. Violates WP:COATRACK, specifically WP:UNDUE as it is a content fork of Russian famine of 1921. 1921–22 famine in Tatarstan relies on a single source and has been tagged so since 2010. Gsearch only turns up wikipedia mirrors while searches in Gbooks and Gscholar turned up nothing specifically to a famine in Tatarstan during this time period. 174.3.125.23 (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I completed the nom; no opinion. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no problem with this article whatsoever. It does not meet the terms of WP:UNDUE. It is not biased. It provides information not in the main article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge to 'Russian famine of 1921'. Tatarstan appears to be inside Russia or in its time Soviet Russia. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (or just redirect). Tartarstan is and long has been part of Russia: at the time in question of the Russian Federated SSR. This article adds nothing to the wider subject. If it can be substantially expanded providing information on events in this Autoomnous SSR, that the article could be retained, but not until then. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This page discusses the Stalin engineered famine/genocide of Volga Tatars. This deserves its own page.Nestwiki (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and discuss a merge. Does not appear UNDUE at all -- Y not? 21:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.This page raises issues not discussed in main article. It raises issue of Holodomor of Tatar people. I don't see any problem with this page. Delljvc (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact you are right, this is akin to the way the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 is being used by nationalists to promote their cause. You don't see any problems with attribution of the 1921-22 famine entirely to "war communism" rather than the contributing factors of climate and civil war? Okay, if you say so. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Aldrich[edit]

Clark Aldrich (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 been used to harass the subject, it is also subject to edits that are hard to verify due to lack of sources. Four are currently cited: one is a profile in a trade magazine, one appears to be a namecheck, the other two appear to be primary sources (and perhaps not independent). They are not linked inline so the text itself, which is - ahem -stylistically problematic - is hard to verify. Most of the article is by WP:SPAs. Overall, this is causing a lot of trouble for a poorly written article, and I thik we can do without it. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you explain how it is being used to "harass the subject"? I can find no evidence of this on the talk page or in past AfD discussions. Silverseren^C 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Clark_Aldrich. I'm not sure harass is the right word. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, the claim is completely untrue then. Good to know. So, what was the point of this AfD again? Silverseren^C 07:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has value in bringing together the published works of Aldrich and updating the profile and career. This is useful to those who are involved or are developing research and products in this niche area of 'simulations' Paulpen (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The best method to show that Mr. Aldrich is notable in the field of education simulations is to find more reliable sources, such as news articles, books, journals articles, ect., that discuss him. Like i've been doing. Silverseren^C 07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Procedural close NPASR  The current article bears no resemblance to the nomination argument.  There is nothing to discuss here.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep since the proposal to allow the nominator to reopen the discussion has received no support, and the nomination's concerns appear to have been remedied.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article seems sound; topic is notable. --doncram 11:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Okay, I think i've done all I can with the article for now. I hope it appropriately shows the notability of the subject now. Have a nice day. Silverseren^C 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- GreenC 15:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is an additional Keep-sentiment !vote that was left on the talk page. -- GreenC 15:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zendex Corporation[edit]

Zendex Corporation (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 corporation. I could find no coverage in a search. The article makes no claim of notability for the company and consists mostly of a chatty history about its founding. Unreferenced since 2009. MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources either. Corporations are not inherently notable. ChromaNebula (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Long-unreferenced, nothing new seems to be happening to make it worthy of keeping. I'm generally inclined to give these some time, but it's had time since 2009. BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a small and run of the mill tool company. Much of the article is probably a copyvio of the obituary of its founder, Robert Sealy Livermore, but I can't be certain. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as a keep, although a merge discussion may prove fruitful.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appian Technology[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company. I could not find any significant coverage, and the company may be out of business. Bloomberg Businessweek lists it but shows no recent activity; the phone number they list has been disconnected, and I couldn't find a website for the company. MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I could find the company in two separate Indian newspapers (the Times of India and the Economic Times) and plenty of other sources. Why delete it? ChromaNebula (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what those Indian references said? I did notice that Google suggested there was a company profile at The Times of India, but the link was dead. In any case, "company profiles" are usually just reprints of company-supplied information--MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ZyMOS (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On further searching, I found that the company (originally named ZyMOS) went bankrupt in 1994 and that most of its assets were acquired by Cirrus Logic.[1] So a merge/redirect to Cirrus Logic is a possibility. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gang_bang_pornography#Other_gangbang_records . Redirect !votes had stronger arguments, and they are WP:CHEAP. Nothing near a consensus for an actual article to be kept. Information to be merged can be done through history.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Givens[edit]

Victoria Givens (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 PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards or nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Just kayfabe based on press releases. A BLP fiasco. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement by IP without prior edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First off...thanks, I needed that image in my head O.o. I'm in pain just thinking about this woman. Before I vote, is there any criteria for record holders? Does being a world record holder impact notability? Certainly 101 is quite a feat, would that have any bearing on this? Personally, I would forget the whole porn bio criteria and consider that aspect rather than debate her notability as a porn star. Bali88 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: my vote is Merge to gang bang pornography. That's a pretty impressive record. I think it is worth a mention.

• Delete. Without non-trivial interest from reliable sources, this performer fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Any claims this record is a unique contribution to porn or an otherwise notable achievement need RS coverage to back them up. Otherwise this is just hype. I am only finding press releases in a search for reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think uncertified claims of world records count for notability purposes. I presume this wasn't in the Guinness book of records? BLPs must be sourced properly so this is an autofail Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this is a pretty impressive record. I tried to look up this record and it has lots of mentions, but its all on a bunch of porn sites, which I don't particularly want to look at. I don't know which sites are considered reliable or whatever, but I don't think it's unverified, it appears to be legit as it has been described widely online. And I mean...if someone wants to verify it, it's on video. This is not something that I think I want to go to the trouble of verifying, but if someone is in doubt, the video is out there. -_- Bali88 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all records are notable. If no-one has written about it in an independent reliable source we can be sure that the record is not notable and hosting an article based on our own viewing of a film is very much original research.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to rise to the level of notability required by the gudelines for pornographic actor biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gang_bang_pornography#Other_gangbang_records - After doing some searching & recently editing the article in question here, it appears to me that the best course of action at this time would be to redirect this subject's name to the primary thing that she is currently noted for, which is participating in a gangbang record. I do not concede that the subject's article currently has no "reliable sourcing" at all, and I am personally not a fan of this subject's work.

I could see how one could make an argument that this subject here has "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" or has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" though. Guy1890 (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent idea. Bali88 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, Whats going on here? Reliable Sources per WP:PORN, XbiZ, AINews.com, AVN, AVN, AVN, and AVN.

With multiple reliable sources this actress pass WP:GNG the article has WP:RS and is a keep. Valoem ^talk 22:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • You can't call a self-penned letter and regurgitated press releases reliable sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I am looking at this: AVN Givens, XBiZ Givens, and this google books reference. What I am seeing per WP:GNG and WP:RS is significant coverage from reliable sources in this genre according to the ProjectPage's requirements. Google books is considered the most reliable. This actress has had significant coverage. Every genre has different sources considered reliable. Video games has Kotaku, Wired, Gamespot, and others. Poker has PokerNews, Cardplayer, and Bluff Magazine. Porn has AVN and AIN so I am making this judgment from the precedence set on porn RS. To require CNN, NYT, Forbes, or major publications does not appear to be a requirement for determining notability in this genre. Valoem ^talk 00:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So these are not what you relied on earlier? No? Also, I'm afraid that you need to specify the sources and not just link to search pages. I looked at some random articles from your search and they were all regurgitated press releases. Both AVN and Xbiz are notorious for reprinting press releases so you need to analyze the actual reference to determine if its independent. The company press byline and contact to the webmaster is a classic giveaway that its not independent. Can you list any sources you think are NOT regurgitated press releases? The book you linked doesn't show the actual reference to Givens so for all we know its a cast listing. You cannot rely on any of those things without being able to properly examine them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Guy1890 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Please can the closing admin not potential canvassing [2]. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to the canvassing, it was an outreach for the opinions from members of the porn project. I was confused specifically about this which states stated Xbiz is a RS with no further information. I tried to leave neutral messages for unbiased opinions, my concern at the time, was due to the lack of response from members of the wikiproject. I have no editorial history with any of the editors and found all of them here (went down the list). Valoem ^talk 13:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to gang bang pornography. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Comment, I found some more sources that may establish more notability:[reply]

• XBiz
• Adult AFI
• AVN Article
• Xbiz Reliable sources if not press release per WikiProject Porn RS.

Sources with reliable questionable:

• Marks Friggins Victoria Givens appearance on Howard Stern
• AVN article Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 - no byline and its about an interview. The actual interview is a primary source and does not count for this reason. No comment on whether the source of the interview is notable anyway. Its a commercial site of some description.

2 - Not a RSas far as I can see. No named reporters, no evidence of fact checking etc.

3 - Obviously not a RS. Looks like a press release, no byline.

4 - Has a byline, mostly quotes which count as primary sources. Once you discount them there isn't enough for this to be a substantial secondary source.

5 - Where is the content on Givens? Its an unreliable schedule of the Stern show. Not even close.

6 - Looks like a press release.

So in short. No. None of this is helping and in fact you are strengthening the delete side by showing how weak the sourcing is. I mean, she claims to have set a world record but you can't find any after the event reporting? Seriously? Everything you have found looks like promoting the event not regular reporting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Grilled Cheese Truck[edit]

The Grilled Cheese Truck (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)

Apparently notable , tho some of the sources , such as a local business journal, local newspapers, and the press releases reprinted in trade journals are very questionable, but article is too promotional to stand. I tried rewriting it, but it would have required complete rewriting from scratch. Among the unsourced promotional statements are "placing them along some of the best comfort foods and sandwiches in the country." , "numerous accolades" "countless television appearances" "well on their way to becoming the first publicly traded food truck. "

Among the promotional writing devices are a description of why the founder happened to conceive of the company and the use of the proprietor's first name by itself through the article, which is appropriate only for popular entertainers, a list of TV shows where they appeared, and a focus on twitter (etc) rank. (These devices are characteristic of paid editing, tho that's not proof this is--it could merely have been naïvely influenced by the style of the thousands of such articles in WP.)

Accepted at AfC; reviewed by the AfC elimination drive, which considered the acceptance correct. I've commented there. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have began to perform some copy edits to address promotional tone in the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has received significant coverage in numerous local newspapers, and on a TV show ChromaNebula (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:AUD per national coverage in QSR Magazine and regional coverage in the Orange County Register: [3], [4]. I have performed some copy editing to address promotional tone, and additional edits from others to better the article are most welcome. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - easily passes WP:GNG but it is a very good thing DGG brought this up for deletion, as it has vastly improved. Still some room. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm still new to wikipedia, but I had it in my head that notability was basically what we were supposed to consider in AFD discussions. Am I wrong? What is the reason for the AFD nomination? Bali88 (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bali88:, thanks for your input! An AfD discussion is to determine whether an article is worthy of being kept. One of the most common arguments to keep is regarding notability, but sometimes articles on notable topics are deleted because of extremely poor writing, or because they are blatantly promotional, and there isn't any hope of fixing it without starting completely over. Best case scenario is when an article improved, and then kept. Take a look at the article's shape at the time DGG nominated it, then compare to its current state. Hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It easily meets the standards for inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Sexx[edit]

Nikki Sexx (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:PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content -- aside from disputed birthdate/place claims, no biographical content whatsoever. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP without prior edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. My own searches only yielded press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unsourced BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Please can the closing admin not potential canvassing [5]. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Lamour[edit]

Lexi Lamour (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 PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Claimed TV appearances are unsourced and uniformly involve erotic programming rather than mainstream content. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement by IP without prior edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The current sources have minimal biographic content. Don't think anything better exists.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete BLPs must meet GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was tempted to consider a keep vote from the coverage I found in searches, but a closer look at these sources indicate they are regurgitated press releases. Fails PORNBIO without awards or being featured in real mainstream media. Fails GNG without substantial RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Spartaz. Admirably concise and precise. David in DC (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Clearly, fails all relevant notability guidelines. Finnegas (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see the overwhelmingly stacked votes against this article, however reliable sources in WP:PORN is vastly different from restaurants and businesses. Per the ProjectPage's requirements AVN and AIN are WP:RS a search brought 77 hits on AVN] and 1 hit on AIN, and slight coverage from Brazzers. Valoem ^talk 01:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Even WP:PORNPROJECT cautions, "AVN also does not indicate when an article is a press release." The AVN and XBiz articles I found are reprinted press releases or trivial mentions. The media contact at the end is usually the tell on a press release. Brazzers is not a reliable source. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Please can the closing admin not potential canvassing [6]. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to the canvassing, it was an outreach for the opinions from members of the porn project. I was confused specifically about this which states stated Xbiz is a RS with no further information. I tried to leave neutral messages for unbiased opinions, my concern at the time, was due to the lack of response from members of the wikiproject. I have no editorial history with any of the editors and found all of them here (went down the list). Valoem ^talk 13:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Family values.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional family values[edit]

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

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

I'm not taking this to AfD because I think it should be deleted; on the contrary, I have no opinion. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tagged it for speedy deletion, but User:Bearian contested, and suggested a PROD or AfD. I took the liberty of making the nomination, while noting that I am a neutral third party regarding the page's deletion. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First, it's a very recent creation by banned user Benjeboi, via his just-identified Sportfan5000 sock, intended as a thumb-on-the scales way to associate the widely used phrase with a relatively narrow political segment. Second, it's basically a content fork of Family values; there's nothing suggesting the more careful and more accurate treatment of the phrase in that article is inadequate. Third, it's far too open-ended, and is likely to end up a lengthy-to-the-point of being useless laundry list -- its four entries already include a related phrase, a type of political rhetoric, a political movement, and a political philosophy -- it's already a catch-all for more-and-less associated concepts, not the alternative meanings/referents a DAB page should be used to identify. 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)
  • Agreed. The relevant policy is WP:DABCONCEPT. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Family values. They seem to be the same thing. WP should have an article on the topic and/or expression, even if its meaning is somewhat vague and constantly shifting. BTW many people have complimented President and Mrs. Obama on their family values without implying that they are somehow right-wing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out Obama family values. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I think it could be included. I just don't want the precedent of speedy-deleting a possibly good article merely because it was created by a banned user. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what is there to merge? It's a WP:DAB that falls very very far afoul of WP:NPOV. ansh666 05:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what I was thinking; redirect to Family values would work better. I'm pretty sure the "possible meanings" are mostly included in there already. ansh666 16:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in the sense of referencing these possible meanings in Family values and redirecting the title there. bd2412 T 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Mohammed Samara[edit]

Emad Mohammed Samara (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)

Based on the username of the creator, I suspect that the page has been written by the subject. The "Research interests" section is copied from their LinkedIn profile. Discounting the copyright and COI concerns, the article's only substantial text is a list of papers, which does not, in itself, demonstrate notability under the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Arguably a candidate for CSD G12, but that would depend on whether or not the rest of the text could be considered salvageable. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 18:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete H-index of 3. [7] Fails WP:PROF and just about every other notability criterion. Jinkinson talk to me 20:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for a professor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Autobiography, and supposed indication of notability (having articles published in journals) doesn't fly. However, we need to avoid biting the article's creator... ChromaNebula (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WoS shows 8 total citations (h-index 1). Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete for failing to meet the GNG.Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 06:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn apparently I don't understand restaurant notability. StarM 04:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Fyne Restaurants[edit]

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

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

This is a chain of restaurants for which there is no evidence of notability. Beyond brief mentions of their locations' opening and closings, the only coverage I find is their payment issues, which isn't enough to establish notability. StarM 16:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to:

• The Scotsman
• BBC News
• Herald Scotland
• Huffington Post
• The Mirror
• The Guardian
• Metro
• The Independent
• London Evening Standard
• Information and Communication Technologies in Rural Society. pp. 74-76.
• Local heroes: how Loch Fyne Oysters embraced employee ownership and business success. 192 pages.
• Caterer and Hotelkeeper

Again, more sources exist in addition to those posted above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- A restaurant brand with 42 outlets is sufficietnly in the public face for an article to be useful. A category for them would not be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, as demonstrated in sources posted by Northamerica, thanks. --doncram 01:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are myriad opinions here such as merging to friendship, creating a disambiguation page, and retaining the article as a stand-alone article. Furthermore, in a comment below the initial (stricken) withdrawal, the nominator again withdrew on 25 March 2014 (UTC), and no other delete !votes are present. Further discussion regarding this article can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best friends forever[edit]

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

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

Article has no aim. it simultaneously acts as a dictionary entry and disambiguation page, but also attempts weakly to describe adolescent and post-adolescent friendships.

If we're trying to get into the nuts and bolts of what best friends are, culturally-speaking, or how best friendships impact human development, the people who should comment on that are the authorities in the field of culture, anthropology, human behavior, child development, etc., but I also think such content makes more sense in an article on "best friendships" rather than in an article about the cutesy modern expression "Best friends forever". So, I'm of the opinion that the article can be deleted, or turned into a redirect to Friendship, or merged into Friendship if there's enough content here to warrant inclusion. In its present state, the article is a wordier version of this Wiktionary entry, and has not improved much since 2010. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I withdraw the AfD. Sorry everybody. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I think I screwed up by creating the AfD, I'll wait for it to resolve and then renovate future approaches to this sort of issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination proposes a variety of actions which may be taken by ordinary editing such as a title change (move) or merger. Such action is preferred per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. A deletion discussion is not appropriate as this is not the article's talk page and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, my nomination isn't sudden or anything. The article PRODed by another user in 2011. A few users have mocked it on the talk page for being poorly written, and user Gusworld questioned the sources that attempt to bolster the subject as presented in the article. If there is a point to the article, I don't see what it is, or what it has attempted to be since 2010. I first raised my confusion on the talk page in January, with no objections or attempts to clarify. Not sure what special treatment is suggested here. It's an article about a common phrase that doesn't impart the significance of the phrase. And it's not like sociologists treat "best friends forever" as an actual, and distinctive type of friendship. Merging the scraps of this article somewhere else might be a way to go, but seriously, what useful portion could be merged? To exist, the article would have to be fundamentally rewritten and refocused on the significance of BFF in popular culture or something. No? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously there is work to be done here and I have started doing it. But the question at AFD is whether we need to use the delete function. The nomination seems to acknowledge that this should not be a red link and that there are more constructive alternatives. So, if we're not going to use the delete function, why have a deletion discussion? Andrew (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((u|A fair point. I've had a reality check recently with regards to my AfD nominations. I'm open-minded about the fate of the article, and AfD seemed at the time the best place to discuss all the options. I withdraw my AfD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Friendship It doesn't need a separate article. Anything useful here can be included in the article Friendship, which would help to make it more complete. --Stfg (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the suggestion made below to change the current page to a disambiguation page (having merged any content into the Friendship article). --Stfg (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Change into disambiguation page. The hat note on the current pages tells us that there are several notable things (mainly TV episodes) with this title. A brief definition of the expression itself could be at the top of the page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a lot of Google news and Google book search results for the phrase, so it is used a lot. Not sure if it needs its own article, separate than Friendship. Dream Focus 01:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Variety of actions - the page itself should be a disambiguation page. "BFF" is certainly notable as a word, as the usage can caught on remarkably in the past 20 years. If it isn't already, should be in the dictionary, but I'm not convinced that it should have its own encyclopedia page. I think an argument could be made that BFF could have a mention on another page, such as friendship. The concept of BFF, imo, isn't anything distinguishable from other types of friendship. If there was some new type of friendship that it described, I would argue for its inclusion, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that. I looked at the sources and it looks like they indeed use the phrase, but aren't really about the phrase to describe the concept of bff as opposed to other type of friendship. So my vote is turn this page into disambig. and merge. Bali88 (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources do, in fact, drew a clear distinction between the different levels of friendship. For example, Best Friends Forever explicitly spells out a hierarchy of casual friends, good friends and best friends. Academic studies such as Best friends forever?: High school best friendships and the transition to college are specifically concerned with this level of close friendship too. As multiple books have been written about this topic, it passes WP:GNG easily. Andrew (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to disambiguation page. Definitions are at best friend forever. There there is Best Friends Forever (South Park), Best Friends Forever (TV series), and Best Friends Forever (soap opera) or Best Friends Forever?. Then there is also currently a redirect at Best Friend Forever to Paris Hilton's My New BFF, which seems a questionable redirect at best. Then there is also episode 12 of season 1 in List of R. L. Stine's The Haunting Hour episodes, a track from Love is You (EP) by Cherry Belle, and Best Friends Forever, an Internet album by Liz Enthusiasm, 2009 comedy film BFF: Best Friends Forever, simulation game High School Dreams: Best Friends Forever, upcoming Nepali film BFF: Best Friends Forever (2014 film), a song Best Friends Forever (Tweenies song), and any number of partial title matches which might be ambiguous enough to merit a mention such as Super Best Friends Forever. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab page ..older ≠ wiser demonstrates the many uses that need disambiguation. However what to do with the content.. if someone wants to recreate in best friends forever (phrase), and can demonstrate sources about the phrase and its impact on society (beyond examples of use and definition) that would be OK. -- GreenC 04:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I added to the article. The phrase has been around at least since 1987 and has had an impact on society, likely in an amount sufficient to be described in a Wikipedia article given enough time. Andrew, Dream Focus, Green Cardamom, please consider, reconsider. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the phrase exists and that it has had an impact on society. I do, however question the article's focus. If we're talking about the phrase, then let's talk about the phrase and the impact on the phrase in popular culture. But if we're trying to say that there is a real anthropological thing called "best friends forever"--that the Mayans invented it or whatever--and it's somehow different and closer than the more common concept of "best friends", that's gonna be a weird thing to try to sell. I'm going to re-post this comment on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, agreed. Bali88 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Friendship; then, create a DAB at Best Friends Forever (which currently redirects here) for the songs/TV shows/etc. and redirect this there. I don't think this warrants its own article, per WP:NOTDICT. ansh666 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and DAB I think merging the content into a small section of Friendship and creating a DAB page for the phrase, including a link to the Friendship section and for all those other uses that older ≠ wiser listed would make it accessible and meaningful to the most readers. - Gorthian (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a notable phrase. Even though some of the content would perhaps go better in Friendship, the phrase itself and its uses, could be expanded in this article, as the second paragraph has begun to do. BethNaught (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By that I mean the paragraph beginning "The term BFF as in Best friends forever has been used". The analysis of childhood friendships added by User:Wallfull is not what I believe is appropriate. BethNaught (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase is certainly notable enough to have a wikipedia article, but i question how well we can find sources for this. People use the phrase widely, but how often do you find reliable sources discussing the use of the phrase and its impact on culture? I question if we can really do a BFF (phrase) without it being largely original research :-/ Bali88 (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep where this topic is notable and has plenty of sources which are reliable. It is a common phrase used, especially nowadays and many young readers will be searching for this term. A lot of work has been done to improve the page, too. Tinton5 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahar Hirsh[edit]

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he has played in a match in the Toto Cup Ligat Al, a competition only open to teams playing in the Israeli Premier League. As he has played a competitive game between two teams both from a fully-professional league - in other words a fully-professional cup competition - I am happy to say he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Article, however, needs improving. GiantSnowman 16:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2 Roleplay[edit]

Half-Life 2 Roleplay (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 game mod. No reliable sources to be found. Only forum chatter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find any reliable sources. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete per nom and Samwalton9, can't find RS's. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Young-hyun[edit]

Kim Young-hyun (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 kickboxer, other claims (even if notable) are usourced. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep He has competed four times for K-1, including two wins. Shaolin Punk (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a criteria for notability as a kickboxer.Mdtemp (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet WP:KICK. Can it can be shown he's notable for ssireum? Mdtemp (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clearly not notable as a kickboxer. I have been searching for a list of national champions in ssireum, but I have not yet found one. The list at Ssireum is for the Cheonhajangsa Ssireum Championship, not the national championship. (I suspect that was the only list the author could find since it's the list I found in my search). Perhaps someone who knows Korean can find a list to show his notability in ssireum. Papaursa (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable kickboxer, which is focus of article. Also fails GNG. No sourcing to show notability in ssireum and burden of proof is on those claiming notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Sign of notability based on kickboxing records. Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 06:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think he's notable as a kickboxer, would you please explain what part of WP:KICK he meets? Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He has 2 wins as a kickboxer and none as an MMA fighter. Since no evidence has been given he's a notable ssireum fighter, I'm voting to delete this article. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments are clearly weighted towards deletion. I suspect, however, that interest from someone with access to Japanese sources and the ability to use them could have changed the outcome of this discussion.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Kanno[edit]

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

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

fails WP:BIO. The 2 sources provided prove that he gets coverage from his notable wife. WP:NOTINHERITED. I only find coverage for a much more famous namesake eg http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2066367_2066369_2066313,00.html LibStar (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is obscure, true, and hard to find in Japanese: his name appears to be 菅野衣川 (read Kanno Isen according to ref below, but 猛 (Takeshi) is also given as his 'real name'), but there are references to him as the wife of Gertrude FBK. He is one of the group including the Ishigakis (both of whom have articles), so I think he merits one. I found the following book he (self-)published (but it's poetic-idiosyncratic, not just crackpottery).

https://archive.org/details/creationdawnavis00kann

He was a pupil of Joaquin Miller, which explains the odd "Hights" spelling; see p 163 in this reference:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jeigakushi1969/1995/27/1995_27_151/_pdf

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jeigakushi1969/2001/33/2001_33_105/_pdf

See also Yone Noguchi, father of Isamu Noguchi.

Sorry, this is the result of hurried research, but I think it is adequate justification. :Imaginatorium (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Imaginatorium, I don't know much about Japanese topics, can you give more details why this is notable, why is "See also Yone Noguchi, father of Isamu Noguchi" important, why is being a pupil of Joaquin Miller notable. I wish we had some sources about him, like academic sources that mention him. -- GreenC 15:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I do not suggest he is "very important"; and I had never heard of any of these people (except Isamu Noguchi) until the other day. However, the other names all have WP articles, and Kanno has an odd pivotal role between the others. From what I read the other day, he was eclipsed by Yone Noguchi as a Miller pupil, and had his wife stolen by Ishigaki, so he helps to hold the story together. The two PDF references above are a couple of articles in Japanese on his life, but have substantial English summaries at the end. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE As the article stands now, it's a strong delete. Notability not established, inherited notability doesn't count, and there's nothing in the article per WP:V and WP:RS to support any claim of notability. The article would need to be expanded drastically with a discussion of his life, poetry, styles/influences, etc. No where near that now. If the article improves in the short-term, I'd reconsider, but it's best to delete this and let someone draft something more substantial before moving it into articlespace again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bebe_Rexha#Singles. No prejudice against un-redirection should its status under WP:NMUSIC change. slakr^\ talk / 04:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't Stop Drinking About You[edit]

I Can't Stop Drinking About You (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:NMUSIC and is not a Featured Article JMHamo (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the FA tag, let me know if that wasn't the right thing to do. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bebe_Rexha#Singles. An article doesn't have to be a featured article to have notability, but it's still too soon for an entry. If/when this gains more coverage, we can always un-redirect. So far, I just don't see where there's much coverage about the single. The Nylon Magazine interview is a good start, but it's too light for now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Give some time for more information to be added. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments are clearly weighted towards keeping, although I note that sources would be nice.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Buckmaster, 4th Viscount Buckmaster[edit]

Adrian Buckmaster, 4th Viscount Buckmaster (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 hereditary Viscount who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see nothing notable about him. Has not been in the House of Lords.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Businessman activity is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Probably notable for having been chief exec of Avecia, a small plc, apparently taken over in 2011 to become a subsidiuary of Nitto Denko. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Relisting comment: Let us discuss for one more week. So far deletes were based on WP:GNG and some of the keeps represented personal opinions, but at least the Avecia argument is worthwhile to be discussed, and may be there could be additional keep arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. Perhaps in fifty years, none of this will matter. However, even nowadays, being a peer gives such a socioeconomic advantage in life that one almost always becomes notable due to business networking and the old boy network. In this case, the Viscount has been engaged in high-level registered charity and business work, so he'd probably be notable for those activities. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 18:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naima Neidre[edit]

Naima Neidre (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. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 00:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete A High Beam search reveals one mention of this person, as the illustrator of a book of poems. A Google search, as far as I went down the list of entries, reveals only web sites which sell her art. I agree with the nomination. I found nothing to show that this person is notable. Donner60 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Sources are affiliated with the subject. Nothing to pass creative bio to keep the article. Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 06:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merit Motion Pictures[edit]

Merit Motion Pictures (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 of notability, only one of 52 sources is a reliable third-party source, and it doesn't provide enough details about the company to write an article. A Google search for additional sources came up empty. Huon (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are 52 sources! And it is credited in IMDB as producing i think 23 films. IMDB is not reliable for some things, but is reliable about basics like that. Editing is needed: the references are "in-line" format but all located in the section for references, not at the relevant locations in the article / table itself. But editing quibbles belong at the Talk page, not at AFD. --doncram 23:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It doesn't matter how many sources there are. If there were 100 sources, and all of them were invalid, it would still get deleted. IMDb can not be used to establish notability. We need verifiability, and the IMDb does not generally offer that. That said, I'm too lazy to go through 50-some citations to ascertain which ones are reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. A quick skim of the "references" in the article doesn't show any reliable sources that are about the company, only about various episodes and shows. The only two I could find are not enough to justify an article.[8][9] Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and keep The company head Merit Jensen Carr is a notable Canadian filmmaker, and no bio article exists on her yet. Last year alone, she won the Don Haig Award at Hot Docs, a lifetime award-type honour in Canadian doc cinema, and (less notably) was honoured by the Winnipeg Film Group. So per WP:PRESERVE, a suggest repurposing this as an article about her, with a certain amount of pruning and new info to reflect focus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Carr seems borderline at best as far as WP:FILMMAKER is concerned. She hasn't gotten a lot of press, par for the course for documentary makers not named Michael Moore. The Don Haig Award (worth $10,000) is okay, but it's no Gemini. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Non-notable film production company. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Almost no coverage at all at any major American or Canadian source. As expected, I got a few hits at the Winnipeg Free Press, but they were just trivial mentions or routine business. I'm not convinced that the founder is notable enough for an article, either; DGG would probably say that the awards are minor. I'd rather keep production companies, distributors, and festivals, but some just aren't notable enough to support an article, even though they're potentially linked from numerous articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theoria and Praxis[edit]

Theoria and Praxis (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)

Relatively new, non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Too soon. Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your criticism. I don't know why Wiki's editors are in rush all the time. Yesterday 15 minutes right after I posted the skeleton of the article, I see a half page note with a heading "speedy deletion" because I did not have enough sources. I added few sources then I get another note titled "article for deletion" because I did not include any indexes. I add index, now it is about "Relatively new, non-notable journal". Yes, it is not a 100 year old journal, but it is going to publish its third issue in two months. And please stop calling it "non-notable", because if your background is social sciences and you go check the editorial board of the journal, you will see that its= is indeed very notable. Btw. the journal is on Google scholar, you just need type the complete title. And for your information, the journal is currently being reviewed for indexing by JSTOR and Philosopher's Index. And one final note: please give me some time to work on it. I was going to develop the article slowly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exminre

• Comment Exminre, there must be a misunderstanding here. The current version of this article was not proposed for speedy deletion, that CSD notice on your talk page is months old (and it wasn't for lack of sources, either, but for a copyvio). There is a bot warning considering this article, that's all. Having looked at the article, it was pretty easy to see that it does not meet any of our inclusion criteria. Therefore I placed a "PROD" tag. No hurry there, either, because such a tag gives the community (including yourself, of course) seven (7) days time to find adequate sources before the article gets deleted. As you immediately removed the PROD (now who is in a hurry... :-), I opened this AFD discussion, which also will last for seven (7) days. If no sources can be found in a week, it's pretty safe to assume that there aren't any. I'm pretty confident that this will be the case, but will happily withdraw this nom if you can find any evidence of notability that I may have missed. --Randykitty (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Randykitty, I have included 6-7 more sources. I will continue working on it. Please let me know if I need to provide more info. Thank you. Exmin

• @Exminre:, references 3-8 are about the inclusion of this journal in databases like Google Scholar and DOAJ (and the other ones listed in the article), but none of those databases is both selective and major (GS obviously is "major", but like Google tries to index the whole web, GS tries to index all scholarly literature, for example; I'd never heard of "JURN", but it's website says it's "powered by Google", so that's not selective either). References 1 and 2 are to the journal's homepage. In short, you still need to come up with references that either discuss the journal in-depth (usually very difficult for academic journals) or show that it is indexed in major selective databases. As it stands, there is absolutely no evidence of notability, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Randykitty, Hi Randy. Thanks again. I would like to remind you that T&P is a new journal and as you may know major indexes take close to a year to review and get back to one. currently, T&P is being reviewed by JSTOR, PhilPapers, The Philosopher's Index, Thompson and Reuters, and Sociological Abstracts. Once they include T&P into their data I will update the wiki page. There is not much else I can do at this point other than waiting. Best. Exmin.

• Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON then... --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment Yeah, my general rule for philosophy journals notability is that it should indexed by Philosopher's Index and PhilPapers. So I would vote delete for now (copy to user space and wait for the review to be done). This is supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal though, so maybe some other indices are relevant: I don't know. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Frazier[edit]

Derek Frazier (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 wrestler. He spent his career in minor promotions without major impact. His career is 4 or 5 lines. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Previously deleted following AfD debate. Still fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT or WP:ATHLETE (wherever it should belong). mikeman67 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - definitely only wrestled in minor promotions, of which those mentioned in the article CZW's the biggest I believe, but he's never held their top/main championship. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my delete vote. Did a google search, he's been reported 142 times by PWTorch, 98 times by WrestleView, 64 times by PWInsider, 36 times in F4Wonline. The sources are out there, someone just needs to insert them into the prose and beef up the "career" section. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, in that case, can somebody improve the article? It's a petty to keep the article (if it's notable) and leave it without make up. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: CZW and MCW help to establish his notability. Everyone needs to remember that appearing in WWE or TNA do not establish the notability. It is appearing in various promotions, winning titles, and getting reported about which helps. PWI report, two CZW titles, two MCW accomplishments. Certainly notable enough.--WillC 19:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the CZW nor the MCW titles were the main title of the company. He's won two secondary titles each, which is not enough to qualify as a major success in my opinion. Anyway, his career section has zero sources. The only sources are for the titles he's won, and they're Solie Title History and Puroresu Dojo? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know about wrestling outside WWE and TNA. However, even for independent wrestlers, I think isn't notable. Two minor titles in minor promotions. CZW Tag Team title was held by 60 wrestlers, but we haven't articles for every one. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CZW has had world-wide tours. They have shows in Germany. In fact they are pretty big in Germany. CZW isn't a minor promotion and MCW has had people from Jerry Lawler to Homicide to the New Age Outlaws involved with the promotion which has resulted in it getting a wider name. I'm the one who got the heavyweight title to FL and all of the CZW titles to FL. I understand how popular they really are. They aren't exactly minor promotions. Not huge, but pretty close to the size of ROH.--WillC 11:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close to the size of ROH... in 2008? ROH has been on national TV since 2009. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One way to judge wrestling promotions' notability in the US is TV/PPV in my opinion. TV/PPV determines their outreach and audience size. Major promotion tier 1 is WWE (including NXT branch), TNA with international TV and PPV outreach. Major promotion tier 2 is ROH with national TV outreach. Minor promotions should be judged as to whether they have a TV product (within states) or iPPV capability.

Minor promotion tier 1a for 2014 so far - limited TV product - Championship Wrestling from Hollywood (KDOC-TV, Los Angeles), OVW (ION, Louisville and WOBZ-TV 9, London) and AAW (MaddyGTV on Roku).

Minor promotion tier 1b for 2014 so far - iPPV capability - EVOLVE / DGUSA / SHINE (via WWNLive), CZW / WSU (via CZWiPPV.com), PWX via Highspots.tv and IZW via GoFightLive.tv.

Everything else goes in Minor promotion tier 2 and is very minor IMO. Surprise, CZW has been running iPPVs since 2011 at least, so they're maybe a top minor promotion after all. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CZW has been airing tv on G4 for several years.--WillC 17:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know it. However, it means CZW is notable, not the wrestlers. Yeah, the wrestlers will be notable if they appear in CZW, but not every wrestler. For example, current Tag team champions haven't their own article, like former champions like Andy Sumners, Eric Ryan, Dustin Rayz, Devon Moore...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is national exposure. In CZW's case it is international exposure.--WillC 00:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, WillC? It sounded like you were saying that they had a regular television program with international exposure on G4 for years. I did some research, apparently before Feb '11, CZW footage that aired on G4 TV's Attack of the Show on Thursday evening. These emails have been fans asking CZW why G4 TV is only showing clips and not a whole CZW show and if G4 TV is planning on airing a CZW TV Show. Really sounds like a one-off feature to me, not a regular television series. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have been airing specials and other things on G4 and I think Fight. I didn't mean a series. Exposure on tv is what I mean. All I know is from when I expanded the CZW titles and I found information along the way. I discovered that CZW is bigger and more successful than it seemed.--WillC 08:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't count that they have been regularly on TV if they were merely featured twice. It's a one-off thing. They have been regularly producing iPPVs though, I'll give them that.

Promotion via The Wrestler (film) as well.--WillC 04:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can talk about CZW and the TV, or we can talk about the wrestler. Yeah, CZW is notable, no doubt. Is Frazier notable, even if he appeared in CZW? Remember, a lot of CZW champions haven't an article (like the current Tag team champions, Eric Ryan, Andy Sumners, Devon Moore, Vorktez... Also, we have wrestlers who wrestled in ROH PPVs and they haven't articles (Adam Page, Tadarious Thomas, Cedric Alexander, Silas Young... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And people not taking the effort to write their articles is an issue for this one why? They may be notable as well, just means no one has attempted to write one. Eddie Edwards didn't have an article when he debuted in ROH, this Nici wrote one. I expected their to be no information on him and it was a very good sized article. C class if I recall. It is all about effort.--WillC 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. As a minor wrestler with no notable impact, Frazier does not meet notability reqs. Also, 4 of the sources are essentially the same source. --PDX er1 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete State and local pro wrestling titles? Not notable! A ranking of #273 doesn't do it either.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Few Things Left Unsaid[edit]

Few Things Left Unsaid (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)

Can't see a single trace of notability as we need per WP:NBOOK. Created by User:Sudeep Nagarkar, who shares name with the author of the book, thats the only edit made by this user. Also the author's article Sudeep Nagarkar is AfD by me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Bunch of unreliable and dead links. There's only one working secondary, independent and reliable source ([10]). Unfortunately one is just not enough. At least first 7 google search page results into none RS. However, taking into consideration multiple reviews published into many online stores, notability could be established as NBOOK says,

"A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources including reviews" (WP:BKCRIT).

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which "multiple reviews" are you talking about? Can you link some here? The one TOI link you gave above says "A recently published book, "Few Things Left Unsaid" sold 8,000 copies within a fortnight." and that's all it writes about the book. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant these, [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. These reviews in multiple sources might help to establish notability of this particular book as per NBOOK (WP:BKCRIT). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Publishing of the stuff like; book's-name, author's-name, about-author, book's-plot, price-discounts-if-added-to-cart, out-of-stock-status, reader's-views; don't count as book review. Thats called online advertising for online shopping.These all sites are actually selling the book. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they are selling books but they have published review of the book as well. For example, please visit one more time these two links, [26], [27]. They have "Overview" and "Author" section and they discuss the same. Doesn't it contribute to establish notability of the subject? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those two aren't proper critical reviews that offer the opinion and analysis of an educated/experienced critic. They are just describing what the plot is about. Wikipedia doesn't use reviews written by members of the public (which the crossword.in review appears to be) or reviews that are just descriptions of a product on sale (the rediff.com "review" is more like a publisher's blurb). Notability is shown by being reviewed in a publication that is selective about what it reviews; the reliability of a source is shown either by the reputation of the source or of the author, and the fact that submissions are edited and fact-checked. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Backing up what Colapeninsula is saying here: most of the sources are either merchant sites (which are pretty much never usable as a source in any fashion) or they're social media type sites where anyone can review. I hate to put it this way, but the given opinion of the general public doesn't count towards notability. Only the reviews by organizations, publications, and individuals that meet our WP:RS guidelines can count towards notability. This rules out a lot of blog sources, as most of them are self-published, aren't run through any sort of verifiable editing process, etc. (See WP:BLOGS) There are exceptions to the blog rule, but it's fairly rare and usually it's only a usable source when you have someone along the lines of Michiko Kakutani or YALSA posting something on their blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newsview Media Network[edit]

Newsview Media Network (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)

Basically an advertisement; I'm not seeing any claim to notability other than who launched it. Yes, it's a news org...that exists exclusively online, powered by WordPress, without any evidence that its existence has been covered or discussed. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, between the copyright issues (http://trak.in/tags/business/2013/10/01/indian-online-news-consumption-toi-tops-12-7-mln-comscore/) and the promotional tone, even if this were notable we'd have to start from scratch. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete: No evidence supplied or found that this website has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanaian name[edit]

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

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

I noticed that this article has a misleading article title and is a duplicate of another title "Akan names". The various ethnic groups in Ghana have a completely different system so the Akan system cannot possibly speak for all. The title should have been "Akan names" but since another article with the same title exist I suggest a merge the two articles or deletion of this one. Masssly (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I completed the nomination. The material is essentially identical as Akan names, with this article having an extra unsourced section on "personality types" for the different names, so I don't think a merge would be useful; also not sure about a redirect given that there are other groups/languages in Ghana (as far as I can tell), but I do support getting rid of this somehow. ₆an⁶sh₆ 23:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi, If so why not we restructure this article as the name implies: Ghanaian names to cover all the naming based in Ghana as stated by Masssly rather than deleting. Also you can notice clearly at the bottom this article it shares a common template ((Names in world cultures)). Which includes Akan names as well. The best thing to do in my view here is to keep the title and make the article represent what it should as in Ghanaian names; there by representing all the ethnic groups even if they have individual articles. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reconstruction of the whole article as suggested by Enock4seth in a more representative manner is not a bad idea, compare with Zimbabwean names. The article started as a merger from Traditional Names in Ghana by Dominic. Masssly (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, Zimbabwean names doesn't have a single source, so I'm going to tag it as such... Anyways, I guess an expansion in scope would work here as well. But what should we do with the current content? Because Akan names of course would still exist. ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Until someone adds info on other peoples/languages, redirect to Akan names, tag as ((R with possibilities)). Some details could be also be merged there. – Fayenatic London 12:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No !votes to delete aside from nominator (who should really sign his/her name...), arguments about discussion of song accepted.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who Am I Living For?[edit]

Who Am I Living For? (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:NSONGS and WP:GNG for no significant coverage outside of album reviews.

• Keep. Despite a lack of significant coverage, which I'm inclined to favor in song articles, and which is heavily recommended in WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, the latter guideline does have some flexibility in allowing articles on non-notable songs. NSONGS notes that even if a song is not notable, an article is "appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". So, while my preference is to not have a standalone article when it consists entirely of trivial, non-independent coverage (i.e., sheet music, liner notes, a non-significant chart placement, and single-sentence mentions within the context of album reviews), current consensus supports a different outcome, which is to keep articles on songs that do not meet WP:GNG but satisfy the "reasonably detailed" sentence of WP:NSONGS.  Gong show 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I must say I'm surprised by you voting keep when you acknowledge it lacks significant coverage. Not sure where a consensus opposing WP:NSONGS and/or WP:GNG is held. This isn't exactly that detailed, either..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A reasonably detailed article" as defined by NSONGS is when it has grown beyond a stub, a bar which this article has surpassed. The clause does not explicitly require the material to have been obtained within significant/non-trivial/non-independent coverage.  Gong show 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the part of "reasonably detailed". "Notability aside" doesn't mean that length covers up for lack of notability, it was saying that however notable something might be, the notable thing(s) would require enough in-depth coverage to make something more than a stub. Even if not explicitly in NSONGS, GNG requires more coverage, which this fails. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Gongshow has stated above, the article passes the "reasonably detailed" requirement of WP:NSONGS. It's rare that any song receives commentary outside of an album review (the only exception usually being a lead single). I'm quite content with the amount of information available and her discussing the song in great detail is a bonus. — Status (talk · contribs) 02:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have misunderstood the "reasonably detailed" bit of WP:NSONGS as well. The "reasonably detailed" bit does NOT include comments from album reviews and doesn't indicate that length can take precedence over lack of notability/significant coverage. Commentary from song authors themselves don't really count for much, either. Plenty of songs that aren't lead singles get significant coverage outside of album reviews, but this isn't one of them. In any case, it fails WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In case my previous comments hadn't already been counted, Redirect to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) or Delete since the "reasonably detailed bit again does NOT make up for lack of significant coverage, the commentary from Katy herself seems like a case of WP:MASK. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Dewilde[edit]

Marius Dewilde (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 sources except a dead link, and online search only turns up mentions on fringe blogs. mikeman67 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. Fringe sources need cleaning out, but the topic is notable. Apparently Dewilde got a lot of coverage in 1950s France. Disinterested academics discuss the media's distortion and cultural impact of his tale: [28], [29]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That means it was essentially WP:ONEEVENT and against WP:NOT#NEWS. Particularly in the mid 20th century, a person claiming an extra-terrestrial encounter that generated temporary media coverage can hardly be said to be notable. It's not like there's even a section of the book dedicated to him (let alone an entire book or article), it looks like just a page in the book as an example. mikeman67 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some Frenchie is going to have to work on this one. A lot of the reliable-looking sources were in French. I realize blogs aren't reliable sources to reference, BUT the way I look at it, if he's important enough that that crowd is talking about him, people are going to be coming here looking for him, and if people are coming here looking for him, that's notable enough in my book. Bali88 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was no consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Fleisch[edit]

Jody Fleisch (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 spent his career in minor promotions. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Appears to have achieved enough success to be notable. STATic message me! 20:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: CZW and FWA establish notability for him.--WillC 19:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 18:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Fury[edit]

Lisa Fury (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. She spent her career in minor promotions. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - she lost a two-minute match on WWE SmackDown and spent the rest of her career in minor companies primarily around Europe. Not notable overall as a pro wrestler due to lack of exposure and success. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Non-notable wrestling accomplishments. Also fails WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Freedom Party[edit]

Personal Freedom Party (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 political party. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Political parties are not inherently notable. That said I do tend to favor a broad inclusionist position when it comes to this topic, provided we are talking about a national party and not the state chapter of a minor party. But as with all topics, common sense dictates some limits need to be applied. In the absence of clear guidance from WP:N beyond WP:GNG (which they don't seem to meet), my baseline for notability is ballot access. Are they now, or have they ever been, on the ballot in any state? As far as I can tell the answer appears to be no. If/when WP:RS evidence to the contrary is found I am open to reconsideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. Holding[edit]

J. P. Holding (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 Christian apologist. Self-published. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only tiny cites in GS for usually well cited field of pop-theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. GS h-index of 2, no WP:GNG evidence.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 04:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Shofe[edit]

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

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

I see many references to his own presentations, and a good many routine reports in trade newspapers about them. I do not see any firm evidence of notability. What this therefore amounts to is a promotional biography. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Aside from the pure primary sources, I am seeing passing role coverage. The most substantial is this from Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "...held posts in the administration of former Gov. Arne Carlson and the Minnesota Republican Party, represented the industry-funded Tobacco Institute from 1992 to 1996... a Washington lobbyist for British American Tobacco" ([30] via Highbeam, subscription reqd), but that is really just a diary item potted biography. Insufficient evidence of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep up for a short time for improvement before deleting: I think there is a case to be made for both sides (delete or keep). For keeping the page up, I looked at the cited sources. I counted 7 different sources that appear to be reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. (Democracy in Action; thehill.com; p2012.org; Daily Finance; BioPrepWatch; Washington Business Journal; Washington Post; and Bloomberg Businessweek). I added a couple today to beef up the article's credibility.
  • However, the article comes up short in meeting the criteria for "significant" coverage, and needs more improvements to meet the overall worthy of notice criterion.
  • I'd suggest soliciting improvements to the page for a short time period, and see what can be done with it. Thanks. Nhj78992 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've searched for sources in factiva and can only find brief mentions and press releases. Quite some way from meeting the requirements of WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-The arguments for/against above are actually moot now. The page is completely different today than when this template was applied. Old resume content deleted. New interesting/unusual type content added. The guy is no Barry Bonds, but he's notable enough among the Washington, D.C. scene. And if we have state legislators and small town mayors having their own Wikipedia articles, then this guy having one is probably fine. Trendyrandy7290 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep  Passes WP:GNG as per the sources now listed in the article and at least one more source mentioned on this page.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Perednik[edit]

Gustavo Perednik (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)

It's badly written, and there are no good sources that are able to be used for the article. 123chess456 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 36 cites on GS. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Is there anything else? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, Considering 76,000 search results and his popularity. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment GHits do not say anything about notability, substantial reliable sources do. And being popular also needs to be verifiable through reliable sources. (BTW: just changing your Google search to "Gustavo Perednik" reduces the number of GHits to 31,600... --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to say that Google Trends doesn't actually have enough search volume for Perednik to make a Google Trends graph, so he does not get that much search volume. Agreeing that the list of Google results do not mean whether somebody or something is notable or not. 123chess456 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks as though most of what is written about him is in languages other than English, such as Spanish and Hebrew. One source, from among those pointed to by the above Keep !voter, states: "Perednik is the author of 15 books on Jews and modernity." More on his background is here. An audio of him being interviewed on Arutz Sheva is here. He appears to be the main subject of this article here, and is interviewed here as well (in German?). In this book by Anatoly Shcharansky he is referred to as an "anti-semitism expert." There is much more for anyone who has the time and language proficiency, but even these look to point to notability so far. (And yes, the nom is correct -- it is poorly written and needs work .. but that is not a deletion rationale at AfD.)--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research, Epeefleche. I think this may have changed the nominator's mind about deleting the article, am I right, 123chess456? Also, the article has been edited and now looks pretty good to me in terms of wiki standards. Shalom11111 (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the article still should be improved -- but that is not an AfD issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

After Epeeleche's explanation and the minor improvements that the article has undergone by now, I think it's clear to everyone, including the article's deletion nominator, that we should keep the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me, I'm afraid. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You voted delete because you said the article doesn't meet WP:Prof#C1, but as Epeefleche showed, his influence and coverage is significant in other languages. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many more times do I have to say that my view is unchanged? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - Low keep unless I am wrong I read the lead and didn't find anything that would deserve to keep it. The gentleman studied, which is good. As I did. Anyway, I scrolled down to try to find something worth keeping the article. He wrote several books and an article. In such circumstances, the criteria is to have been published (but not to self publish). There is this editor "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" who published him and they seem to have a peer review board. If this is a sufficient criteria, we could keep it. I don't know what are the principles currently used to consider having been published is enough to consider an article could be kept but I think it could be enough. But we have the minimum and nothing more. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these issues are discussed in the WP:Prof guidelines. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolof Wikipedia[edit]

Wolof 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)

Not notable, the only "reliable" source may not have mentioned this edition at all TheChampionMan1234 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: We have a precedent for articles on other Wiki versions, so I believe it would be an example of our systematic bias if we were to get rid of this one.Brigade Piron (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• • We actually have a precedent to redirect non-notable versions to List of Wikipedias - these follow WP:GNG as much as anything else. ansh666 04:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep per reasonable doubt that it is mentioned in the source (Google Books says that there's a mention), but trim out some unsourced info, which I'll do if it's kept. ansh666 04:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. Single keep !vote is completely unrelated to policy, redirects are cheap  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirundi Wikipedia[edit]

Kirundi 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)

Does not seem to be notable, where it says, 'four million articles by jan 2012' is not true TheChampionMan1234 10:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete Most of what the article says actually applies to the English-language version of wikiepdia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. Related article Piedmontese Wikipedia was just AFD'd this month, and I !voted Keep, and decision was to Keep, and then it was renominated for deletion again. All of these are notable, and it is appropriate for any language Wikipedia to have coverage of other-language Wikipedias. I would wish for someone to speedily close this and related AFDs, as a waste of time. --doncram 17:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a non-notable wiki (see [31], for precedent). ansh666 04:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. Single keep !vote is completely unconvincing, redirects are cheap  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[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)

Does not state anything about notability, nor does it have reliable sources. TheChampionMan1234 10:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication that this website is significant or important.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. This article was just AFD'd this month, and I !voted Keep, and decision was to Keep. What has changed? I would wish for someone to speedily close this and related AFDs, as a waste of time. --doncram 17:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing has changed; it was just the wrong decision the first time. ansh666 04:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a non-notable wiki (see [32], for precedent). ansh666 04:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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