< 30 April	2 May >

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

The result was delete. The article presents a future event entirely in the past tense, as if it already happened. Literally, the WP:CRYSTAL policy is, well, crystal clear: the article speaks as if it's recounting history from the future via a crystal ball and is inherently unverifiable and obviously uncertain to happen in the manner described by the article. The question of whether it's "too soon" is superceded by the very literal interpretation of those policies. slakr^\ talk / 07:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game

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

Too soon. Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Create this no earlier than when the two championship teams are decided, which isn't until April 2015. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jrcla2. Beyond the date and location of the game there is nothing to report. Rikster2 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: There is already an article created for the 2015 Rose Bowl, the 2015 Sugar Bowl, and the 2015 College Football Championship Game and those are not happening until January 2015 (teams are not going to be determined for those events until December 2014) but an alternative option would be to merge the article to 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament or 2014-15 NCAA Division I men's basketball season until a date sooner to the national title game. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One year in advance is not incredibly soon for an article to be made. If we delete it and it is remade within the next six months, it would be more efficient to just leave it up and continue to add to it as the year goes by. Adamh4 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- May I add that the article does not contain a single source for any of its claims. If one year is not too soon to have an article, what is? As Jrcla noted, the article can always be remade when the national champion teams are decided. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until It's Gone (Linkin Park song)[edit]

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

The song currently fails WP:NSONGS as it has yet to receive significant independent coverage in reliable sources. It will not even be released as a single for a whole month and it has not charted. The only citation used is an overall preview of the album and the rest of the article is WP:OR. STATic message me! 23:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hunting Party (album) for now. When it gets significant coverage from reliable third party sources independent of the album, recreate page. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per nom. The article creator seems to lack a grasp on the WP:GNG, judging by a number of articles like this that have been prematurely created. Wait until there's more to be said, and more coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It just had the World premiere on BBC Radio 1 and also the lyric video has been released now. --Stryn (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Keep- It has been premiered. Good enough for me! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 00:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON.--Laun chba ller 07:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NSONG, the article is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" (iheart, Ultimate Guitar, Rolling Stone and Loudwire) and "there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". At a minimum, the article should be MERGED into The Hunting Party. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But is there significant coverage independent of the album? WP:NSONGS also states "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since the song has now premiered, there's been more coverage of it, such as the following:

http://loudwire.com/linkin-park-until-its-gone-lyric-video/

http://radio.com/2014/05/05/linkin-park-lyric-video-until-its-gone/

http://www.gigwise.com/news/90750/listen-linkin-park-unveil-new-hunting-party-track-until-its-gone Kokoro20 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to new coverage, I'm changing my vote to keep. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSONG. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its no longer something that has no been covered yet in the news. GigWise, RTTNews, MusicFeeds, ZME Music, Loudwire, DirectLyrics. The list will actually increase as time passes and it will already be a significant topic in no time. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 05:22, 8 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate culture conflicts[edit]

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

Original research, term paper. Article creator removed prod, has been working on formatting but not on wikification. Creator also created similarly-formatted article Corporate decision making, which is the subject of another AfD. --Finngall ^talk 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Bali88 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia (country)–Pakistan relations[edit]

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

Entire article is a copyvio, and there is no indication that relations between these countries are notable. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Egad! The entire article? All 1 sentences of it? Are you sure you've checked the whole thing? Honestly, this seems like you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Jinkinson talk to me 23:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio aside, there is no indication of notability for relations between these countries other than WP:ITEXISTS. I only mentioned the copyvio because the editor that created this article was banned for creating a series of articles like this one that were copied and pasted from other websites. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current state; a mere statement of existence is not sufficient for an article. If someone manages to add some reliably referenced text then I'm happy to retract my !vote. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:00, 2 May 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vikramadithyan[edit]

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

This was on deletion but a logged off user took it off. Film has yet to film, just a cast list is listed. (plot says IDK even). Wgolf (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay I thought this was also a first film for people due to the line "first film of 2014 for blah blah" which in fact it was the first film of them for the year (odd thing to say on a page), still it just says it started production, not filming yet. Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NFF needs at a minimum significant third party sources indicating principle photography has begun. Redirect to director or incubate may also be acceptable. (locking to prevent premature recreation also advised)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such this one. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hardly "substantial" at 4 two-sentence paragraphs. hardly "reliable" when it consists of "If reports are to be believed,"- typical promotional celebrity gossip. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon TRPoD, but the mandate for "significant coverage" does not mean that a source MUST also be "substantial" in content. To quote the applicable guideline: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In considering Candleabracadabra's statement "substantial coverage in reliable independent sources", I think it more prudent to equate "substantial" to the number of sources available, and not quibble over the content of the one he chose to offer... as there are many more. I point this clarification out because their is no guideline nor policy requirement calling for "substantial content". Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. " and Wikipedia:ROUTINE#Routine_coverage "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." Theres nothing about the coverage of this film that is not routine promotional publicity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE refers to event notability, and while helpful for events, as a guideline for events it is often contradictory to WP:NF... the specific guideline set for film notability. In regards films, "routine" might be something trivial and banal such as "the film screened for two weeks and grossed XX dollars". If using the applicable guideline, if the overage allows us to extract without original research, the actors and plot and production details and public anticipation and past films, and is reported in sources reliable for such information in that part of the world (even if they are shorter than western news sources), it is not a routine report of a "event". We'll certainly disagree, specially as not ALL sources do this, but enough cover the topic directly and in enough detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content and the article can then be thus accordingly improved over time and through regular editing to improve Wikipedia. If WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met, an article is allowable. However, rather than debating in efficacy or lack of a guideline intended for events rather than films, might you instead wish to discuss the possible merits of a merge and redirect as a consideration under editing policy? Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is trivial and banal is the coverage "Our next guest is X who is going to start filming in Y's upcoming film! Let's see a promotional clip!!!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

Ah... if the guest interview included information about the film, then we have the required further coverage of production. And such is still not judged under "event" notability criteria. We really need to consider the guideline set for films, not for events. Wide media attention... some brief and some lengthy... is exactly as required for policy-mandated verifiability of included content. Heck, even with the MOST notable topics we can find the occasional one or two line speedy comments in some media. We consider it all, not just a few minor ones. But thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Vikramadithyan Lal Jose Dulquer Salmaan Unni Mukundan Namitha Pramod Anoop Menon Lena Kumar

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

Keep per coverage in multiple sources to meet the notability requirements set by WP:NFF (paragraph 3). To partly agree with the nominator, the article needs a lot of work to meet WP:MOSFILM and be properly encyclopedic, but we rarely delete topics determinable as notable simply because they need a little regular editorial attention. Not believing a flat-out deletion to be best, I am willing to consider arguments of how a merge and redirect of this sourcable film topic to director Lal Jose might somehow serve the project far better than simply improving this article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay now I'm iffy about this. Not sure if this should be deleted or not - I could withdraw this but rather not, just rather see what happens, whatever happens, well happens! Wgolf (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cursory research shows this film from an acclaimed director is notable, the article simply needs additional improvement. I haven't been at AFD much lately but between this and things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Un'amore e una vendetta I'd say we're getting a bit lazy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I think we need to separate out "reliable sources" from "promotional material". Yes, there is lots of coverage of this film, but the vast majority of it seems to be gossipy promotional hype. What looks impressive when you look at the number of sources is a lot less impressive when you look at the quality of those sources. That said, I'm only going "weak" as there might be better quality sources in Malayalam that I can't access. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Derangement Syndrome[edit]

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

Is written very much like an attack page. all sources are either broken or are unreliable. Staglit (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simple poorly sourced political attack page designed to boost the credibility of the ruling party and denigrate the opposition, created by an editor with a long history of POV article creation in support of one specific political party. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your political views. - Ahunt (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Nom is right that it's written like an attack page now (this isnt a real mental illness, for one), but this should be fixed by rewriting the page not deleting it. I would redirect it to Public image of Stephen Harper (as was done with Bush derangement syndrome), but that page doesn't exist. In any case coverage of HDS in RSs is sufficient to establish notability. Jinkinson talk to me 22:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's keep this topic (HDS) as a topic to be discussed in another topic about the rabid hatred of Stephen Harper. JOttawa16 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Completely agree with Jinkinson. The tone of the article needs to be softened, as it is severely anti-liberal as it stands presently, but the term seems to be reasonably well-sourced and there is no doubt that some people hate anything and everything about the Prime Minister. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, I'm familiar with the term. Google it as a phrase, and you'll see it's been used in reliable sources, as have variants for Bush, Obama.... and yes, Trudeau. But this reads like such a blatant, textbook case of WP:COATRACK, such a clear attempt to use the term as an attack page, so contrary to WP:N in the most fundamental way, and so lacking in any NPOV content worth preserving, and it should go. If somebody wants to try create an NPOV article for this subject, fine. This is an insult to the reader's intelligence and I would have certainly tried to speedily delete as an attack page, utterly devoid of encyclopaedic content. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there is an issue with the article's published content, then let's clean up the article and make it better and more complete. But there is no need to delete it: as others have pointed out, it speaks to the Canadian version of a political phrase that has been used in the United States too (for example, Bush Derangement Syndrome). JOttawa16 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the subject of the article itself is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Harper Derangement Syndrome is solely used as an attack to people complaining about the conservatives. It has no place in Wikipedia. Even if it is determened to be a relevant subject, it would have to fundamentally rewritten as it has so many issues. Staglit (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: JOttawa16 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There is no Bush Derangement Syndrome article, it redirects to Public image of George W. Bush. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, JOttawa16 has made an attack page on liberals. This article should really be speedy deleted as an attack page. A short section on Stephen Harper's only noting the media's use of the term, might be relevant, but anything more than that is too much. JDDJS (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous attack page. The person who wrote it should be topic banned from political articles. Ping me if there's an RFC/U or ANI discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually I agree that the article creator, JOttawa16, should be topic banned from all political pages, his editing history clearly shows WP:NOTHERE. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd agree, too, that it's reached the stage where a topic ban is warranted. Or at least a discussion of same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd strongly agree with a topic ban. How many times has he tried to force Decade of Darkness on to Wikipedia? JDDJS (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, talk about a personal attack. I posted Decade of Darkness once as its own page. Then it was suggested I post it again as a sub-topic of another page. So I did. There, too, apparently it was inappropriate to post the truth. JOttawa16 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You made it twice (once as Decade of Darkness and once as Decade of darkness). You started a deletion review about it. Yo tried to add it into several different pages, including Rick Hillier, Jean Chretien and Canadian Forces. And it is not "the truth". It's an opinion being posted as fact. JDDJS (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - As fas as the truth goes, WP:THETRUTH applies. - Ahunt (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Even if the term warrants coverage, it doesn't warrant its own article (it would be a minor mention, in a large article discussing criticism from all sides). Even if it warranted its own article, this wouldn't be the starting point. There's a good reason for speedy deleting attack articles. It discourages their creation. Writers of an attack article are like hecklers in public. They know they'll eventually get shut down, but they hope to yell their message for as long as possible before then, to be heard from as many as possible, and they know they'll come back and do it again another day. --Rob (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate decision making[edit]

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

Term paper, redundant to Decision-making. Proposed deletion tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 21:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Finngall ^talk 13:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with term paper description of article. Fylbecatulous talk 11:12, 3 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AERSP 404H[edit]

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

Non-notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - among all the courses offered by all the universities in the world, we have an article on this one? There is a lack of "significant widespread coverage" of the subject and the sources used in the article are either from PSU, or have very little or nothing to do with the subject. Any aircraft that the students may one day design and finish building may be worthy of an article, but the only reason I can see to have an article about the course itself, is to advertise it. YSSYguy (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per YSSYguy, advertisement of a non notable subject.--Petebutt (talk) 23:28, 6 May 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 Caribbean Series. There is a clear consensus to merge this articles to Caribbean Series, however, everything is already there. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Caribbean Series[edit]

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

This article is not needed due to being cancelled. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it was cancelled does not make it non-notable (see for example the 1994 World Series). Kinston eagle (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kinston eagle. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Caribbean Series. The article on the 1994 World Series actually has some content. This one is one sentence and there's no reason that sentence shouldn't be in the main article. BRMo (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect As BRMo stated, the article on the 1994 World Series actually has content, while this seems to be one sentence. I'd also argue that the '94 WS is more notable than this. The template grays out the years 1961-1969 with an explanation at the bottom, it should do the same for this year as well. This page should not be kept unless there is notable information about the Venezuelan player's strike available. Elassint ^Hi 15:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Caribbean Series, could split later if more content is added. There are also no articles for 1961-69, when they were also not held. Perhaps the main article could contain that in both that fact and this content in the History section? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only stated reason for this nomination is "due to being cancelled". None of the individuals arguing for deletion or merger are addressing this - the only stated reason for deletion. If you feel it should be deleted for lack of content, feel free to nominate for that reason. This discussion is specifically concerning whether it should be deleted "due to being cancelled." Kinston eagle (talk) 17:21, 27 April 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 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-Now I don't know how big this deal was-but the 1994 World Series being cancelled was pretty big, now this could possibly change its name to it being cancelled with a story on why, but for now I say merge. Wgolf (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Caribbean Series. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - can be re-split if more significant information is added. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity name game (word game)[edit]

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

No sources, not particularly encyclopedic, no incoming links. This reads to me like a case of WP:MADEUP and may cause confusion with the upcoming syndicated TV show Celebrity Name Game (note that pages have been moved around to minimize this). Oren0 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've played this, but in the form of geographic places instead of celebrity names. Mentioned in passing here (see "Geography"). I offer no opinion on whether this could be turned into an encyclopedic article, merely stating that it exists. Ivanvector (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that this exists and that people play it. I think points of comparison are the articles 20 Questions and I spy, both of which are written more encyclopedically and cite sources. It's possible that sources for this game exist as well, but finding them may be difficult given the upcoming TV series of the same name. Oren0 (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah I've played this and of course the next letter in the alphabet one (one says Apple, next says boy, ect.), but this does seem interesting that it is here, and that it has been here so long. Now if there is a page for classic road trip games. Wgolf (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's not made up by the article creator, I don't see any evidence of notability. Google results indicate that there are forum games with vaguely similar rule sets, but it is not mentioned in any reliable sources. There's nothing to say in this article except for an explanation of the rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really understand what is encyclopedic about a word game, or why it's necessary to have a page about this. Adamh4 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CustomInk[edit]

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

Fails any real test of notability. Refs are very light-weight and mostly read like press releases. Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:NRVE (topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than those in articles), as clearly passing WP:CORPDEPTH and that the topic passes the real test of notability. Source examples include, but are not limited to:

– Please seriously consider utilizing basic due diligence in source searching as recommended per section D of WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to have enough available sources to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per VMS, seems to have enough sources available to pass WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X360[edit]

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

Doesn't seem very notable, lack of 3rd party sources. ScienceApe (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is poorly sourced, but I'm finding coverage from events in the magazine's history, such as its 100th issue and its rename from X360 to XOne. I've also found instances of other news sources quoting its reviews. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 15:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a 100th issue and being renamed does not established notability. Unless there are high quality 3rd party sources on this subject, it fails notability. ScienceApe (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't claim those things established notability. I said that coverage of those events, which exists, does. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - They need to be cited in the article, otherwise you're just claiming that without citations. ScienceApe (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Audited circulation figures in the tens of thousands[1]. Coverage of the 360 magazine merge[2]. Editor Simon Miller won the Games Media Award in 2008 for his work on the magazine.[3] - hahnch e n 11:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dada ji gulab singh thakran[edit]

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

The only reference on here that mentions him is a blog that says that it is by family. This looks like a poorly written essay as well. Wgolf (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable person, Fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article fails WP:PEOPLE as well as WP:GNG. In addition, it would need a substantial rewrite to even closely follow WP:MOSBIO (including the addition of sources that are more reliable). MJ94 (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PEOPLE and doesn't have enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:57, 2 May 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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Henwood[edit]

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

This almost comes across as a personal webspace (even if the creator is a different name), it mentions that she is successful in her business, but is it enough for Wikipedia? I'm not sure if this should stay or not (I'm thinking either delete or redirect to somewhere else-the only page I could find her on Wikipedia was this one Jonathan Potter.) So possibly a merge even? also this does read as an advertisement Wgolf (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Withdrawn by nominator-due to me not being able to find that much and it being tagged as an ad and my mistake-withdrawing now.Wgolf (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. According to Google scholar, she has ten publications with over 100 citations each, well over the threshold for that notability criterion. And our article on her appears to be written neutrally and factually, and the wording in the nomination about "her business" is highly misleading: she is an academic, not a businesswoman. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-The page was making me think she was a psychologist with a PHD, which there are quite a few of. I also could only find one other article on here with a reference on her. I was iffy about putting the AFD to be honest, but I guess it was better to be safe then sorry. Wgolf (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment-I should add that I did see how it was tagged as such so I thought it might be a good idea to put it there. Wgolf (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment-I think I might withdraw this due to me misunderstanding what this was-plus it had an advertisement tag on it making me think it would go under afd. Wgolf (talk) 23:01, 1 May 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Raza Khan[edit]

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

Highly unremarkable person. No thirdparty secondary sources available for the importance of including him here. Summichum (talk) 16:43, 1 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Southern University dining[edit]

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

Fails WP:UNIGUIDE as a non-notable student-life article at this uni. The article has been CSD removed three times since 29 April. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 16:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Material for the university intranet perhaps, but not an encyclopaedia. Non-notable. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a generally notable topic. Wikipedia is not a guide to student life in the state of Georgia. Possibly salt since this has been recreated several times.TheLongTone (talk) 10:25, 2 May 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: Withdrawn by nominator. Zell Faze (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Girls with guns[edit]

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

No sources are given that this is an actual genre. Would "men with guns", "girls with knives", etc, be genres, too? 331dot (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I further don't think the situation has improved any in the about two years since this was nominated previously. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, it's a real genre: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I'm ambivalent about keeping the article. If people need a merge target, I would suggest exploitation film, where it can probably be summed up in two sentences. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Nominator... this is a real genre. WP:BEFORE? [10]... AND

Republican-American : Girls with Guns: Female Action Heroes...

Republican-American - Feb 13, 2005

In the Girls with Guns genre, this element is often reversed. In Underworld ( 2003), a gun-toting female vampire must protect a hapless male from a pack of ...

DVD Talk - Jul 22, 2003

While the "girls with guns" genre had been a mainstay in HK film, movies like In the Line of Duty weren't too far a cry from the "guys with guns genre". ...

Gunslinger Girl DVD 1 - Review - Anime News Network

Anime News Network - Jun 10, 2005

"It's pretty clear what the creators of this series were trying to do: make a startling new variation on the “girls with guns” genre by treating that label ..."

Animation World Network - Jan 16, 2007

COYOTE RAGTIME SHOW falls into the "Girls with Guns" genre. Sexy robot assassins tangle with two hot federal agents in a prison break that leaves dozens ..."

ADV Announces January 16 Releases - Anime News Network

Anime News Network - Nov 17, 2006

"Nonstop action, super-smooth animation and cool character designs help Coyote Ragtime Show set a new high water mark for the Girls with Guns genre. ..."

activeanime.com, EL CAZADOR DE LA BRUJA COMPLETE SERIES

activeanime.com - Jan 31, 2010

"It helps set El Cazador apart and demonstrates that it is setting its own unique tone to the girls-with-guns genre. During their travels, many episodes are ..."

Orginal Dirty Pair - Movie Collection : DVD Talk Review of...

DVD Talk - Nov 8, 2005

"Though they might not have been the first, Yuri and Kei soon became the poster children for the girls-with-guns genre, and their success allowed for other ..."

activeanime.com ROSE HIP ROSE VOL.1 Rose, Hip, Manga,...

activeanime.com - May 13, 2008

.. "high school girl and a host of insane criminals and make it work so flawlessly. Highly recommended to action fans and fans of the girls with guns genre!"

Rumble Pak - Shelf Life - Anime News Network

Anime News Network - Jan 21, 2008

"Part of the girls-with-guns genre, the series packs pure action with a lot of emotion, and raises a lot of moral questions regarding childhood and human ..."

And there are more. Needing editorial attention is rarely cause to delete a notable topic. We do well to not personally declare a sourcable genre non-existent when so many actual sources treat it as an actual genre. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did review the article first; I started this page after looking at the talk page. I did not "declare a sourceable genre non-existent", I stated that more sources were needed and not given in two years. Something should be done. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I pointed out in the previous AFD [11] reliable sources refer to this as a genre. And whether you believe the article has improved or not since last time, is not a valid reason to delete. Obviously this is a real thing, and it gets ample coverage. Dream Focus 08:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article with much unsourced content little improved in two years is a valid reason to do something, it shouldn't languish unnecessarily. Adding the sources you put on this page to the article would be an excellent start. As such I withdraw my proposal. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 2 May 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 Deleted - the article got the CSD:A7 axe while the AfD was in progress. Hey, it happens. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Kumar D K[edit]

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

Completely non-notable person. One sentence of unverified information, and the person would not be notable even if it were verified. Evidence suggests that this article was created by the subject himself (User:Heykarthikwithu). That user created a previous joke article under the same name, which was speedy-deleted.[12] This article was proposed for first speedy and then prod; both were declined by the creator (who has so far done nothing constructive here). Wish we could speedy-delete this nonsense, but at least let's delete it, and possibly salt the title. MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - It should be speedy deleted, CSD#A7. Creator can remove the ((Prod)) tag, but can't really "speedy" ones. He should better contest the speedy on article's talk page, and let the admin decide thereafter. If creator removes speedy tag, we warn them on their talk page for removing csd tags. Subject is completely non-notable. No reliable sources found because there's not really even one! Perhaps, I'm going to tag the article again with WP:CSD#A7 and requesting protection from creation at WP:RPP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating this for speedy deletion. To clarify the history: An article by this name (but with different content) was deleted last month under A3. The author then created this article. It was again tagged for speedy under A3 "no content", because it consisted only of an infobox; the creator added a line of text so the tagger removed the speedy tag. The tagger then put on a BLP PROD tag because the article had no references; the creator added a reference (actually an invalid one, namely linkedin) and the creator removed the BLP PROD tag. I don't know what the tagger would have done next, because I came along and AfDed it. I wonder if we could have renominated it for speedy, using A7 instead of A3? There are so many reasons to speedy-delete this that it seems like one of them should have stuck! --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And..... it's gone, in the time it took me to write this note. Let's hope it's gone for good. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was earlier deleted for lacking sufficient context under WP:CSD#A3 speedy deletion criteria. And, this time, it was created again, but with some context. As, it appeared to be non-notable doing WP:BEFORE, speedy was more appropriate choice. We can tag article for whatever criteria of speedy deletion, it qualifies. Well, you may want to close this AfD as "speedy delete" (non-admin closure)? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I know that articles can't be prodded a second time, but I didn't realize they can be tagged for speedy a second time (with a different rationale). --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Sacrament Catholic School[edit]

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

It's a primary school, and does not appear to have anything exceptional about it to justify a Wikipedia article. Apologies to the many editors who've edited it over the years, but primary schools are just not considered notable. PamD 14:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: will just redirect it to Waterloo Catholic District School Board. Sorry about that. PamD 14:48, 1 May 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 DreamWorks Animation. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me and My Shadow (film)[edit]

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

This project may never take off, yes it has a "teaser poster" and references, BUT the references are from 2 and 3 years ago about how Dreamworks has planned to make it but it's now back in development and isn't listed as starting production anytime soon. I would say maybe redirect to DreamWorks until the film actually begins filming. All this per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect (to DreamWorks Animation). DWA has a full slate till 2017, so the film is not expected to be released before then, if ever.--Carniolus (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect as above. Since notability is not temporary, simply falling out of production (vaporware) isn't reason enough to delete an article. This said, before bringing this to deletion, a redirect conversation on the talk page would have sufficed. I didn't find much in a Google search. I'm not exactly sure how reliable sources go for films, but there is a lack of online coverage from usual sources here. Redirects are cheap and it can always be undone if more shows up. czar ♔ 00:03, 10 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Woodmansee[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artists - all competitions were under belt. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no independent significant coverage and he also fails WP:MANOTE since none of his titles were at the black belt level.Mdtemp (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE requires titles to be at the black belt level. Papaursa (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, G11 Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamikaze Test Pilots[edit]

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

Possible Test article, And no Evidence of significance. Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 13:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Furu[edit]

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

There is no sources, And there is no indication of notability. Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 13:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a request by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Chinese military history task force for an article on Mo Furu. Please contact the members of that project. Zee money (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Zee money[reply]

I have no knowledge about this bloke, but he is mentioned in Jocelyn and McEwen's The Long March published by Constable in 2006. He would generally meet WP:SOLDIER having commanded a division and later an army. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two references added establishing notability per WP:SOLDIER. Unfortunately Jocelyn and McEwen's book is not available for preview at Google books (snippet view only), but he's definitely in there. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rank of major-general is notable as is his involvement in a major conflict. There are two reliable sources given in the article which back that up. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General officers are considered to be notable under WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Davison (Celebration, Florida postmaster)[edit]

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

Local postmaster, notable for being .... local postmaster. I'm sure he's a great asset to his local community, but I see no evidence that he's notable enough for an encyclopedia. Has been PRODded and dePRODded, so here we go at AfD. PamD 10:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears from the creating editor's talk page that at least one previous version of this article has been created and deleted (current version was created 04:50, 29 April 2014‎ , but note speedy notification of 1:21 am, 16 April 2014, and previous AfC rejection). PamD 10:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of nice people do lots of nice things, but this one does not pass WP:GNG--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 12:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above: the intro says it all, "well known in Celebration, Florida"...but not in the wider world.TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Celebration, Florida and redirect title there. Davison does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a stand alone article but he is verifiably well known in Celebration; winning the town's Good Neighbor Award in 2001 which reliable sourcing calls "high praise".—John Cline (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As above - this might fit for Celebration, Florida Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 14:18, 7 May 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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

99designs[edit]

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

Graphic marketplace with claims not verified by reliable sources. 2010 Weeby award winner was Tumblr Bisswajit 09:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well... the thing is, the award they won wasn't the main one but the people's choice award. Of course that brings in a new concern of whether or not they could have potentially swayed the vote by getting people to vote for them or falsifying votes, but I'd like to think that the WA would have a way to avoid ballot stuffing. I hope they would, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found quite a bit of mention of the company in various different avenues, including several books. I put one of them on the article, but there was still a ton of mentions in other books that could be seen as reliable as far as notability goes. There's also quite a bit of coverage in various RS as well. I have to admit that because of how promotional the article was, I wasn't expecting to find much of anything out there but I've given the article a good scrubbing and cleaned the worst of it out. I'd say that the Webby Award it did win would help go towards notability, so all of this together would show notability enough to pass WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciate your cleanup. The article is sourced with reliable sources so I am willing to withdraw the nomination. Thank you. Bisswajit 14:07, 1 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Turner[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - some almosts as an amateur. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. The Golden Gloves is not the U.S. championship and junior titles don't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP about a boxer who doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 21:48, 4 May 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hero of the Rails[edit]

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

Non-notable standalone film, only coverage is non-professional online reviews (blogs) and primary sources BOVINEBOY2008 16:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple and reliable second party sources - [13], [14], [15], [16] and also this. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep While not something I would watch and while such do not get coverage in such as the Times or Post, it appears to have just enough coverage for a child's DVD release to meet notability standards.[17] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have left a neutral message of notification for interested editors at the WikiProject Thomas talkpage. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Comment It's also a computer game with some reviews online (my kids give it 7/10). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beingalison.com wouldn't count as a reliable source czar ♔ 14:12, 29 April 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 05:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did some digging and found a few movie reviews in locations such as DVD Talk and other places we'd consider a RS. There was also some chatter about it, as well as the multitude of things they did as far as tie-ins go, such as the videogames, the Little Golden Book, and apparently a train tour. There's enough to justify it passing notability guidelines for films now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 1 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Postmus[edit]

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

Non-notable person; in addition I feel the article's emphasis on the negative raises BLP issues. This person's electoral positions as county assessor and county supervisor are not sufficient for notability per WP:POLITICIAN, and general coverage about him is not sufficient for notability per WP:GNG. Half the article is about allegations of corruption, including a criminal conviction, but that issue got only local and at-the-time coverage - nothing which would justify an article here. MelanieN (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with nom's rationale. He is a local politician in an area not famous enough for local politicians to inherit notability, and neither his actions as administrator nor his (alleged and convicted) criminal activity achieved significant national coverage. For what it's worth, I disagree that the article has BLP problems - his local coverage is almost entirely about his criminal activity and not about his political record. It's therefore quite appropriate for Wikipedia to cover him in the same way. Ivanvector (talk) 19:14, 1 May 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Mehta (author)[edit]

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

article for relatively unimportant author of a single relatively unimportant book.

The article goes into detail about her family and college years, which will be of little interest except to her family and friends, who will be adequately served by Facebook. She has worked for several companies, and made a number of talk show appearances. Neither of these is notability. Her present position is given as "investor" for a capital firm, not as a principal or officer of the company.

her book, amusingly listed here as "first" book when it is at this point her only book, is in only 178 Worldcat libraries, a trivial number for a popularizing work of its sort. The prizes are trivial, and not prizes that bring any notability, considering that not even the groups awarding them are notable. The article cites no major reviews, no placement o a major best seller list.

An interesting exercise in making something out of nothing, but what was made is not an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article as written is highly problematic so I would say Delete. However,~~ this commentator, author and consulatant appears to be quite notable so I would support the creation of a well referenced and properly written article on her. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You admit the person is notable, so voting delete seems unwise. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing her on TV, I was impressed enough to look her up here, and am grateful that I was able to find out what else she has done. So I say improve the article if you can, but please do not delete it.George Fergus (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough, given the book has won an award, and she has made an appearance on Realtime with Bill Maher which is no minor show. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome to fix it. But as it is it should be deleted. If you need more time just ask for it to be moved to your userspace. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks quite a bit better now. I am revising my recommendation to Keep. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She is more a journalist than an author (see the external links for a number of her columns) and her professional title as investor is Managing Principal. Here's a start at a cleanup: [18] As a commentator/journalist who has authored multiple articles for each of Inc., Bloomberg Businessweek, and Entrepreneur she does look notable to me, even leaving aside the video media appearances. Maybe somebody could point out what further cleanup is needed? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- her contributions on Bill Maher's show we're intelligent and well reasoned. Her background in economics and business was apparent. She deserves to remain on Wikipedia.

69.145.61.109 (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC) (from article's talk page)[reply]

'Keep - based on numerous major TV appearances. This is not an endorsement of her views, only her notability. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newfund[edit]

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

Pure trade puffery of non notable investment house. After removing the founder's personal prior history there is nothing left of the article that shows any notability and the alleged references do not mention Newfund at all. Article was speedy deleted in March 2014. Fiddle Faddle 06:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had created the previous version and had felt its speedy deletion was entirely unwarranted. Newfund is a prominent name in the French venture capital community. It is in the nature of venture capital firms to communicate little but this is a significant economic actor. To name only one example, Medtech, a company in which Newfund was the first early-stage investor, is one of the most prominent French start-up success stories of the past year, and its founder was showcased during the French President's state visit to the US in March 2014. Montfleur 14:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no demonstrated notability and the references do not show what they purport to show. The references must who the Newfund connection or they may as well not be present. At present they are valueless. Newfund does not inherit notability form the people it invests in. It must be inherently notable to have an article here. Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know what makes VC funds notable if not their investments - look at any in the List of venture capital firms, the key thing that makes them what they are is the companies in which they have invested. The list of Newfund's investments is on their website, so this is documented (now reference note #1 in the article). More info on the investment in those firms by Newfund exists from the specialized press, this can be added but would be redundant - do you advise it should be added to the article? IMHO the more important question is how successful these investments are. Newfund started in 2008 and is a long-term investor, so this can not (yet) be measured by exit prices. Therefore the core criterion for notability is to look at the invested companies' achievements. It would be genuinely appreciated if you could indicate which alternative notability criteria you would consider for an organization like this one. Boubloub 23:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have now added more references from third sources on Newfund's investments, as well as the volume of funds initially raised (EUR 72m). Boubloub 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 April 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 01:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This fund company appears notable in the context of France, where VCs are scarce especially those independent from the state and from big banking groups. investment in MedTech alone makes it a significant player. Aplatanao99 2:55am, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

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

Relisting comment: Two of the keep !votes above are not based upon Wikipedia guidelines or policies and don't qualify article retention per guidelines/policies, so relisting. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:04, 2 May 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gurdjieff Journal[edit]

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

Non-notable publication, I've looked for outside sources and they are far and few between. WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Considering the WP:ATD, there is no argument for deletion here, because the topic is already covered at William Patrick Patterson. At one point in time, it was redirected there. ~~With all of the WP:IINFO in the current article, I recommend a speedy keep and a bold redirect.~~ Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:IINFO has been removed, so I am striking my comment that mentions it. Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that WP:ATD doesn't really supersede notability in this case, and I would ask your opinion of the notability of this topic before we start throwing "speedy keep" around. Just because it gets a mention in a separate article doesn't make it a notable topic in itself. Ducknish (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to ~~William Patrick Patterson~~ George Gurdjieff, not the least evidence of notability. The way I interpret Unscintillating's comment (but correct me if I am wrong), they are not arguing for actually keeping this article, but for redirecting it. --Randykitty (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose updating and keeping.

As a frequent user, but new to making comments, I apologize in advance for any improperly structured commentary.

I do propose keeping the entry as its own article. While William Patrick Patterson is the editor of The Gurdjieff Journal (TGJ), TGJ owes its look to Henry Korman, a published author in his own right, and owner of the graphic design firm Wordplay Consulting. His wife, Mary Ellen Korman, also a published author, is a regular contributor to TGJ. Other contributors include Don Hoyt, former President of the Gurdjieff Foundation; Joyce Collin-Smith, a published author; and James Moore (who has his own Wikipedia entry), a published author.

TGJ published its first issue in 1992--22 years ago. It accepts no advertising so its editorial will not be influenced by commercial considerations. Its support has come from subscribers and newsstand sales. Its focus has been devoted solely to G. I. Gurdjieff, considered by many as the seminal esoteric spiritual figure of the last century, and The Fourth Way teaching he brought of harmonious self-development. It delivers a unique viewpoint on the culture of our day in terms of book and film reviews and cultural commentary, while exploring the many facets of the teaching through original research. Thus TGJ stands as an entity in its own right, not simply as an extension of Mr. Patterson.

I would propose removing the paragraph on TGJ from the William Patrick Patterson entry, simply noting that he is the editor.

Having read the topic on "notability," I recognize that the stated terms are a challenge for a specialty publication in a relatively small universe of similar periodicals. There are five periodicals that I am aware of that are Fourth Way oriented: Parabola, Gurdjieff International Review, Stopinder, Material For Thought, and TGJ. Stopinder and Material for Thought are no longer published, as of 2004 and 1984 respectively. Parabola is currently the only one of these that has its own Wikipedia entry.

In looking at the Parabola entry, as well as Ducknish's entry "The Northern Standard", it does seem that the internal footnoting is relatively modest. In Googling both these entries, I see that a number of external references, particularly for Parabola, are listings on websites for periodicals and books such as jacketflap, to which TGJ can easily be added. There are also print-only references, which will require some research to properly source.

The TGJ entry did contain a list of issue themes, just as Parabola does, as well as a list of some article titles. It is noted that Randykitty removed the listing of article titles, saying "WP is not for posting tables of contents." However, the issues themes list was also removed. I propose restoring the issues themes list, particularly as it denotes the significant themes addressed in TGJ, and reflects similar information used in the Parabola article.

In short, I propose:

1) Expanding the entry to include other significant contributors

2) Actively adding TGJ to a number of the websites that track periodicals, and including print-only references.

3) Expanding on the history and editorial philosophy of TGJ

4) Restoring the discussion of themes covered by the issues (but not the articles listing).

5) Restructuring the article to align with other periodical discussions such as that for Parabola

The work to address this can begin immediately. Will this address the concerns raised?

--xmarc999 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC) — xmarc999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Agree with Propose updating and keeping.

xmarc999 makes good points. I can start making those changes now.

Waterman12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For tips on writing, see out magazine and journal article writing guides. The most pressing issue here is to show notability, either through meeting WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Without that you can edit all you want, but the article will then be deleted in any case. --Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 21 April 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 01:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Randykitty First, thank you for directly responding to what has been said, rather than talking around me or around the content of the proposal. I understand the need for "notability," through frankly am struggling a bit with this. Ducknish states that "I've looked for outside sources and they are far and few between", yet when I click on the link at the top of this discussion page, I see a slew of references to TGJ; I stopped counting at 140. Even taking away self-referential links, including TGJ and GurdjieffLegacy.org, I still end up with 40+. Nevertheless, I am gathering additional sourcing, as I have discovered a book and a website that have reprinted TGJ articles, as well as two books that have started out as articles in TGJ. Am I going in the right direction? And yes, I am trying to get through the the various articles you have directly and indirectly pointed me to. Thank you again. Xmarc999 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)xmarc999[reply]

Redirect to George Gurdjieff per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Since George Gurdjieff did not start The Gurdjieff Journal, a redirect to him would seem misleading. Attempting to address sources as noted above. Xmarc999 (talk)xmarc999

It doesn't matter who started it. The magazine isn't independently notable and it is "a triannual magazine devoted exclusively to George Gurdjieff's teaching of the Fourth Way." SO that can be noted in his article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note of previously undeclared conflicts of interest - In this edit, xmarc999 admits to "providing editing support" to The Gurdjieff Journal, and that Waterman12 "provides web support for the Gurdjieff Journal website". In addition, xmarc999 was brought to this AfD discussion by Waterman12 who wanted support in this discussion, and they collaborated via email prior to their !votes. -- Atama頭 19:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I suspect that the core material for say, The New York Times and Parabola, is provided by staffers, so not sure why "admitting" to this is a negative. My second post on this topic (in response to the sockmonkey accusation) fully disclosed my position, and I updated my talk page with my background, (please read the referenced link for yourself), so not sure why this is characterized as "previously undeclared". As the subject matter expert on The Gurdjieff Journal, I ask Waterman12 to refrain from further participation as this is taken as "collaboration". Is there any chance, with the noted exception of Randykitty (Thx), of any editors actually responding to the content of my proposals, without accusing me of being a sockpuppet or collaborator? I am still specifically requesting guidance. If someone tells me "come back in a month when you have addressed x, y, and z", OK. Is there a better page to open this type of discussion?" Xmarc999 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)xmarc999[reply]
  - You're starting to go in the right direction, but we're not there yet. Which link at the top of the page do you mean (there are several)? Google may lead you to sources that discuss the magazine in more detail and that could potentially show notability. Generally, 2 sources would be enough if they are "in-depth". Google Scholar will show you how many other journals have cited work published in this journal. For those, a couple of hundred will not be enough, I fear. In AfDs about individual scholars, we generally require something in the order of a thousand citations in order for them to be judged notable. A whole journal that has been in existence for more than 20 years will need significantly more. Is the journal indexed in any scholarly databases? --Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Which link ... do you mean?" At the top, where it says "Find sources:", followed by the hyperlink for "The Gurdjieff Journal".
  - I would think that, say, scientific journals may well have hundreds or thousands of references, and are likely indexed in scholarly databases. But I note that TGJ is closer to a cross between magazines found in the Category:Magazines About Spirituality and Analytic journalism, (though the latter is not a "category"). The closest peer would be Parabola (magazine), with some similarities to Sacred Hoop Magazine. At one point I found a list of articles edited by one of the other commenting editors (not sure now how I did that) on newspapers. Many of the references to these newspapers appeared to be in sites such as worldcat.org (in which TGJ is already listed), and a number of other similar sites in which, with some effort, TGJ could be listed (and should be listed. I have now started to contact a number of those sites with the necessary information). I am currently going through the categories of Magazines About Spirituality and Religious Magazines, as well as articles on newspapers with targeted audiences (i.e. Ukranians in Sydney) to understand their sources. Xmarc999 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)xmarc999[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 1 May 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 Policy Press. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Families, Relationships and Societies[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is the leading journal in the emerging field of families and interpersonal relationship studies, established by the internationally preeminent scholars in the field, including a former President of the British Sociological Association, and is published by one of the leading scholarly presses in sociology. What you call "selective databases" are far less important in European sociology and social science/humanities, we cannot judge a social science or humanities journal by natural scientific standards. Robert W.W. Zorg (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. Perhaps the journal will become notable in the future, but right now it is too soon to tell. As for the remark you just added about "selective databases", there are many such databases specialized in the social sciences and humanities, that I am applying "natural scientific standards" is incorrect.--Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is regarded as the most prestigious journal in its field now. Actually, notability is quite frequently inherited. When a journal is established by a well-known scholarly press and by highly recognized scholars, it tends to get recognized faster than a journal published by an unknown press by unknown people. Just as Prince George of Cambridge was given a biography the day he was born. Robert W.W. Zorg (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prince George had in-depth coverage in reliable sources even before he was born. If this journal is indeed regarded as "the most prestigious journal in its field", it should be easy to find sources that comment on this highly unusual (and highly unlikely) feat (given its newness). --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~ - can't see how this passes WP:GNG. That it was founded by well-known scholars in the field does not automatically confer notability. Stalwart111 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect on the basis of subsequent discussion. Stalwart111 13:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect This looks like a serious new journal with a solid editorial staff and board; but looks don't count toward notability, coverage in independent RS does. While there is some coverage on the blogs and announcements by university libraries that they are carrying it, none of these are both reliable and in depth, so the journal seems to fail WP:GNG. I suspect this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The journal is indexed in Social Care Online, a UK-based social science index. My inexpert opinion is that this index is at least somewhat selective; most of the journals on the list seem pretty established. On that basis, I would suggest keeping the article. But if I'm wrong, the existence of and basic facts about the journal are verifiable and the topic is a plausible search term. In this case a redirect to the publisher Policy Press, where the journal is already mentioned, would be the best course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like Mark found what I found. I'd have no problem with a redirect but I still don't think it passes our notability criteria. Stalwart111 22:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with a redirect. --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 1 May 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 23 April 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 05:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prudent Investment[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is an essay. The sources don't support the material, and this isn't actually the meaning of this term. This may conceivably be a notable concept under some name, but (a) it looks like nothing more than an explanation of some guy's theory on how public utilities should be regulated (see deleted copyright violations from a paper on some guy's theory in page history) and (b) even if it is notable, it's not notable under this name and I see no way to figure out what name it's notable under.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edits have been made to clarify the meaning of Prudent Investment. To your point about the title, I agree that the title should be changed, and propose changing it to Prudent Investment Rule. I disagree about the comment that this is an essay, and would request you to elaborate. I do not see the copyright violations; this article was written using 8 sources, which are included. The entire "Disallowance" section was taken from an Oak Ridge National Laboratory article (which has been appropriately cited). I would like to argue that this article not be deleted. GlobalNRG30 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I'm willing to withdraw this request for deletion if the page creator will agree to put the article through the review process at articles for creating and allow it to be taken out of article space. Despite their claims of proper sourcing, the original version contained massive copyright violations and it's still not clear that they're all removed. I think if there's an actual article underneath this essay it needs multiple eyes on it and the creator needs a lot of advice on how to write Wikipedia articles that I don't have time to provide. Thus perhaps moving it out of mainspace into userspace or AfC would be a reasonable compromise. But although I still don't see evidence for notability of the concept I'm willing to believe that the creator can make the case over time.

~~Keep~~ The “copyright violation” and other “violations” of which you accuse this entry to recommend deletion are without merit (in both this version and any historical versions). All content that has been used in this entry is appropriately cited and is compliant with the guidelines of Wikipedia. At this point, I do not think the article needs to be placed in a review process. GlobalNRG30 (talk)

Comment Now that the author has identified the actual subject of this article as the "Prudent investment rule" I will say that I think this topic is notable, but this article isn't about it. It seems in the literature to be the same thing as the Prudent man rule and to cover a wide range of investment decisions not specific to public utilities.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The two articles you reference above are individually based (and talk much more philosophically), not giving much description or attention to real world applications. On the other hand, this Wiki page is the explanation of a rule that is applied and exercised in states across the country. I would like to request this article be taken out of AfD, as it just seems we are debating about nothing that has merit for deleting this article. GlobalNRG30 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "prudent investment" rule at issue here is a rule of rate regulation, and is not the same thing as the prudent man rule applied to fiduciaries that is discussed in our article of that name. Vastly oversimplified, the prudent investment rule is based on the idea that the regulated company is entitled to a reasonable rate of return on its "prudent investments". The issue comes up, for example, when a utility closes down (or never opens) a power plant and asks the regulatory authority for a rate increase allowing it to recover its capital costs from its customers, rather than have its stockholders and/or lenders suffer an investment loss. There's lots of writing on this through the decades, from all sorts of points of view (a few, randomly selected from the first pages of a search:[19][20][21]).

Having said that, while the concept is certainly notable, I am undecided if I think this concept currently supports its own article or can be adequately covered, for the moment, at another page like rate-of-return regulation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, at this point I'm thinking that I'm out of my depth and was misled by the original massive copyright violations. I will be guided by your opinion, should you form one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:52, 23 April 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 05:07, 1 May 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Aaron[edit]

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

~~NN as a professional musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Article is here because he is suspected in a loud crime, but that is of course inappropriate. -- Y not? 15:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nom withdrawn. Thanks for fixing up this article. Looks great. -- Y not? 11:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:MUSBIO criteria #5 and #10. He has recorded with numerous notable performers including David Bowie, Mick Jagger, Amy Winehouse, Tom Jones, Wyclef Jean, Willie Nelson, Luscious Jackson, Mýa, Blondie;[22] and he has release several solo albums, including “Trouble Man”[23] [24][25] which was released in 2010. All of the above is in addition to the notoriety he has recently gained in connection to the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman. Dolovis (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC #5 refers to the primary performer on the album (the person whose name is on the front cover), not to every individual session musician they hired to play on it. The solo album doesn't cut it, either: it's not on a major or prominent indie label, which #5 requires, and it's one album, when #5 requires at least two. And there's been no evidence presented that he passes #10 (television or movie theme song), either. And you have to be able to properly demonstrate that they've garnered coverage in reliable sources which verifies that they've met the criterion — a person whose article asserts that they've passed an NMUSIC criterion can still be deleted if reliable source coverage about them doesn't exist to verify the assertion. (Claiming to pass an NMUSIC criterion that can't actually be verified anywhere is actually one of the standard tricks that musicians who aren't notable enough to have Wikipedia articles yet regularly try to pull over on us. So it's the sourcing that can be provided to support the assertion, not the assertion itself, that makes an article keepable.) But you haven't provided RS coverage here, as the "referencing" support you provided above for the solo album relies entirely on primary sources, and the references in the article aren't any better. Which leaves us with only the Hoffman situation as a notability claim — but as I explain below, we have some very important privacy-related reasons why that can't stand either. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 April 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 01:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No substantive claim of notability here; the article just lists a lot of session musician credits without properly sourcing that he's been the subject of enough coverage to get past WP:GNG for any of them, and thus fails to demonstrate that he passes WP:NMUSIC at all. So the only substantive claim of notability here is the Hoffman arrest — but that makes him a WP:BLP1E and also violates WP:CRIMINAL, which strongly advises that for BLP reasons we should avoid creating articles about people who have been charged with, but not yet convicted of, a crime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Bio would not be here, save for the Hoffman stuff, which makes this a BLP violation. -- Y not? 13:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Criteria #10 of NMUSIC states “Has performed music for a work of media that is notable”, which is certainly true for this musician who has performed music on many notable albums including Blondie's The Hunter, David Bowie's Let's Dance, and Amy Winehouse's Frank (to name just three of the many notable albums listed in the article). The body of work performed by Robert Aaron over his lengthy musical career is certainly significant, notable, and verifiable by Allmusic.com and the CD lining notes for each album listed in the article. He demonstrably meets Criteria #10, and if news of his arrest (which was added to the article after its creation) is a violation of WP:CRIMINAL then that sentence within the article should properly be removed (as it now has been). Dolovis (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion #10 does not apply to working as a session musician on another musician's album. It applies to being the primary-billed performer of a television or movie theme song, or a song on a compilation album — it does not at all cover what you're trying to invoke it for. And furthermore, inclusion in Allmusic — a database which has a page about every single musician who's ever had a credit on any album at all, and thus counts for about as much in the notability sweepstakes as a page on IMDB does — is not a criterion that automatically entitles a person to a Wikipedia article if substantive media coverage is not there to support one. It is permissible for secondary verification of facts after their notability has been properly demonstrated by the use of stronger sources, but it is not enough to support an article if it is the strongest source you can come up with. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 6 May 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 05:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week~~ keep - There's some serious problems with this article. The credits all go to allmusic.com. I'm not clear on if it's considered reliable~~, and I can't even load the links given (not sure if it's my fault)~~. But, there is substantial coverage of this person, even though it's for a bad reason. There is a full length article in the NY Times, amongst others, which kinda tips this over on the keep side. I realize we normally avoid giving bio articles to a person because they're caught up in a single news event, particularly allegations of a crime. But, in this case, the coverage seems to be quite substantial about the person, and detailing their life *before* the event, giving a basis for a biography, that has more bio details than most musician bios (which are little more than credit lists, stats, and reviews). So, this should be kept per WP:GNG. There's been an overreach of WP:CRIMINAL here. WP:CRIMINAL helps protect people who are alleged (but not convicted of something) from having a whole bio made up of unproven allegations, and having nothing else to say about them. In this case, we seem to have substantial and balanced coverage of the person from reliable sources, that can make a NPOV article about their life+career, going well beyond just one tragic event. --Rob (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Obviously the NYT coverage wouldn't exist if not for the BLP reason. This needs to be taken into account. Of course BLP1E cases are going to have a bunch of coverage - the public thirsts to know suspects in noisy crimes, including their life *before* the event. Doesn't make the article any more appropriate under BLP1E. I'd like to post it on the BLP noticeboard, get some more eyeballs on this thing. -- Y not? 14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you feel about this article from Press-Republican, which seems to have substantial coverage unrelated to recent events? Anyways, we agree more eyeballs would be good. --Rob (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like it, it's a great source. -- Y not? 16:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This bit in The New Yorker may be relevant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A mere mention. We have already established that he exists :) -- Y not? 16:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've improved the article somewhat. The prose no longer depends on AllMusic at all. PressRepublican confirmed notability before the alleged event occurred. Without even mentioning the allegations, the article demonstrates notability. --Rob (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , support for User:Dolovis and Rob and User:Y positions Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of the two weighty things[edit]

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

Another one of Striver's many random articles about individual hadith not notable on their own. The article relies solely on primary sources, and is essentially original research consisting of a synthesis of those primary sources to subtley push a specific POV in the Sunni-Shi'a debate, like many of his other now-deleted articles. (He was still a good editor overall.) There is no substantial secondary source material to be found, and there really is no way to change this article to something other than a platform for editors to push one POV or the other. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's claim that "There is no substantial secondary source material to be found..." seems to be blatantly false. See Scripture and Exegesis in Early Imāmī-Shiism, for example. Andrew (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Davidson, thanks for replying. I'm looking at that now, and both the page you linked to as well as the surrounding pages don't show up for me. Additionally, is the secondary source material substantial? Have you found more than just this one mention? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source states, inter alia, "Among these [traditions], a very important place is reserved for hadith al-thaqalayn (the tradition about the two weighty things)...". Another source says "Hadith-i thaqalayn is one of the most strongly established hadiths...". Entire books are written specifically about this hadith in Arabic. Andrew (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, we have two English sources here. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, but per WP:SIGCOV, do two sources support notability? My first inclination would be no. I might be wrong on that, I'm just stating my initial reaction. Now regarding the Arabic books, can you refer me (and anyone else interested in this discussion) to them? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Davidson, I am able to view the first source you posted now. The first one discusses this hadith across three pages, the second source discusses it in a list across half of one page and half of another. I am seeing an issue here with notability; each one of those books mentions this hadith along with a list of others. Will we say that every hadith mentioned in both books is notable now? It seems like a WP:N problem to me. Some of the hadith mentioned there don't already have Wikipedia articles, ostensibly because they aren't notable enough on their own. I can see those two sources adding positively to the articles on Succession to Muhammad and Shia–Sunni relations, for example, as it pertains to both subjects, but will we create articles on every single hadith mentioned in more than one book? Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Kitab al-Kafi both each have tens of thousands of narrations, and between Sunnis and Shias there are several dozen books of hadith spanning volumes. Choosing to create an article about this hadith - which seems to only have two reliable mentions - would either be inconsistent or would open a door for an article about every random hadith to be created. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". The slippery slope argument is therefore weak. Andrew (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, there is no limit to the number of articles. As I mentioned in my last line, it would either open such a door (slippery slope) or it would be inconsistent, because here's the reality: nobody is going to create articles for the other tens of thousands of hadith that might have three sources mentioning them instead of two, or four.

Hence my original point, and I guess I will drop it after this as I fear I might become annoying: were it not for Striver's efforts to create this and many other articles on non-notable subjects solely to push his own unique, personal views (seriously, a lot of articles), nobody ever would have because the subject simply isn't notable on its own.MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual hadith is notable and it shouldn't be deleted. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 14:45, 18 April 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 01:46, 23 April 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 04:59, 1 May 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remmina[edit]

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

The article is about a software product that fails to establish any notability. References given in the article do not meat WP:RS and are either links to download sites, lists of packages containing this product, installation guides or self published blogs. The guidelines at WP:N state that notability needs to be established through the citation of non-trivial words on the subject from reliable, secondary sources. No such sources are given in the article. A Google search for additional reliable sources came up blank. Delete as per WP:N. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a clue if that Sourceforge thing hits the rules... Actually now that the idea gets put forward if it mentions the different updates being released is it a blog? Eh reliable or not it's the only one I'm edgy on. The others clearly fail the rules thus it fails the requirement of having two reliable sources and I'm going to !vote Delete on that basis. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ^{("My new invention!")} 15:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sourceforge does not count as a reliable secondary source. It was created by the person/community that created the software. Thus it is a primary source. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two more references to the article – reviews in Linux Journal (via TechRadar) and Addictive Tips. Together with OMG! Ubuntu! review already in article they (albeit barely) satisfy WP:GNG requirements. There are also other various reviews and news items in Ubuntu-related media, but I don't have sufficient expertise in Ubuntu journalism to assess their reliability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Linuxformat article is a good find. Addictive Tips's About Us was not easy to find. It might just scrape through WP:RS but I think it is a borderline "no". The OMG blog that was already on the article definitely fails WP:RS as it self-publish with no editorial oversight. As it stands I'll leave this Afd open and see if anyone adds something more but I don't think we quite have enough to pass notability but nearly. Rincewind42 (talk)

"OMG! Ubuntu!" was brought to WP:RS/N, and was found reliable. I failed to find any discussion of "Addictive Tips" there, but from "About Us" document you've linked I don't see any significant difference from other online magazines. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"OMG! Ubuntu!" was not found to be reliable. On the noticeboard you linked, two editors said not versus one said yes. Insufficient input for any conclusion to be drawn but definitely not a conclusion that it is reliable. Besides WP:RS/N is context based and so previous discussions there have no bearing on this article. OMG is one young journalism graduate writing articles supported by a few friends. It does not have editorial oversight. It is just a blog. For more comments look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMG! Ubuntu!. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has editorial oversight of a kind (albeit this piece is written by the editor). On RSN nobody disagreed that it isn't reliable, which, given the purpose and process of RSN equals to approval. Deletion discussion (rightfully IMHO) asserted that OMG! Ubuntu! isn't notable, which says nothing about its reliability. The only assertion of its reliability I see there is comment by iketsi, who asserts reliability, and gets replies like that has nothing to do with notability. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but in my opinion, you are wrong in your assessment of reliability of both OMG! Ubuntu! and Addictive Tips. Admittedly weak individually, together with LinuxFormat/TechRadar piece they provide enough coverage to pass WP:GNG just barely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:54, 20 April 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 01:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RDP is important, and the multiplicity of implementations matters, if we are to properly compare different networking protocols and the drive behind them. It obviously doesn't need the coverage of a major topic, but it is covered in books such as Ubuntu Unleashed, Matthew Helmke, Sams 2014, and Ubuntu Linux Toolbox, 2ed, Christopher Negus, Wiley 2014 which perhaps satisfy notability, though those sources are quite how-to-ish. If it was deleted, we'd certainly have to fold some of it somewhere, possibly FreeRDP or RDP, but as I say, I'd keep them all. Clearly the article could be improved, however. Kind regards, 217.155.120.113 (talk) 11:29, 30 April 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 04:58, 1 May 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 for now. The article can be recreated once more reliable sources become avaiable. If anybody needs the text of the article in their user space to work on it, ping any administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viewnior[edit]

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

The article about a software product does not establish any grounds for notability. Only two references are given, one primary source and one self published blog. Notability requires that the topic have been the been the subject of non-trivial, reliable, secondary sources. A google search for additional sources could find only trivial references to product specs or download links with no reviews or other descriptions of the product. As such the article is nominated for deletion as per WP:N. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. The omgubuntu source is very brief, and not substantial enough to establish notability. A search turns up no additional RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few changes to the page. These include adding a number of secondary sources as well as explicitly listing a number of Linux distributions that use Viewnior bundled in the default OS setup (e.g. as a measure of the software's significatance within the FOSS community). In addition, in comparison with a number of articles listed on the Comparison of image viewers page (endorsed by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software groups), this page seems both appropriate within the scope of the project to have a categorical and organized list of image viewers and in fact is very similar to a number of pages referenced on this list which presumably hold the community opinion that they are appropriate for Wikipedia. Therefore I believe that the Viewnior page should not be deleted.Punk physicist (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Punk physicist can you look at the guide at How to contribute to AfD and form your replies accordingly. The computing and software projects are not exempt from the overall rules about what articles should be on Wikipedia. The four main guides are notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V),reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) and you should base your answer on them. Just because on image viewer is notable, does not mean that all image viewer are notable. Just because someone linked to this article, does not mean that the community in general endorses that article or that link. Comparison of image viewers is not a 'featured article' so there is no indication that community endorses it. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My origional comment was meant to address the arguments that this article does not meet WP:N by 2 points:

The article in question is very similar in nature and scope to a large class of articles, many listed in the Comparison of image viewers article. As evidence for this (and to increase the quality of the article itself), a number of new references have been added.
The fact that the software is used in a number of Linux distributions (3 explicitly mentioned in the article with citations) is evidence that it is significant to the Linux community itself and thus by extension is evidence of being notable itself as an import tool for a major community.

Disclosure: please note that I'm the article's creator, but I have no other personal relation or vested interest with this subject. Punk physicist (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these two points address WP:N at all. No.1 is true, there are other articles about similar things but that only addresses WP:NOT. Something are more noteworthy than others. Some songs have their own articles, but not all songs. Some athletes have there own articles, but not all athletes. You can't argue that because some image viewers have their own article that all image viewers should have there own articles. I made that point already above. No.2 is irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. Inclusion within distribution of linux does not provide sufficient grounds for notability.

Establishing notability is a simple process – provide several sources that give reliable information about the topic. For example a review is a magazine or newspaper, a chapter in a book, a section of a TV show or a paper in a science journal. From these we can establish notability, we can satisfy the reliable sources requirement and we thus satisfy verifiability. All that allows us to create a Wikipedia article that everyone can agree is usable. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:29, 17 April 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 01:47, 23 April 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 04:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not meeting the WP:GNG. This is not a comment on the software itself, which I'm sure is very good. However, I was not able to find independent, reliable sources that discuss the software in any depth. There are two "reviews" included in the article, but the sites that review them are one-man operations, self-published, and explicitly therefore they don't count as reliable sources. I haven't been able to find anything better while searching myself that indicates that this might pass one of the notability guidelines. Sorry. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Lots of references, but they're all either self-sourced or blogs which carry no real significance. Need to see (and I'm not seeing) significant mentions in mainstream press, so fails WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG for being within top 5 image viewers, lightweight.[26][27][28][29][30] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable third-party coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Punk physicist, this seems like a good candidate for putting in your userspace for now, and resubmitting it once Viewnior has more reliable source mentions. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 14:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Red vs. Blue media. Merge whatever material is appropriate (at the discretion of whoever does the merge) and redirect all of these to List of Red vs. Blue media -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red vs. Blue: Out of Mind[edit]

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

While Red vs. Blue is unquestionably notable, its mini-series appear trivial and unnotable. There are no non-primary sources available for any of them, and they do not appear to meet the general notability guideline, the notability guideline for web content, or the notability guideline for film content. Perhaps they should all be merged into one article "List of Red vs. Blue miniseries" or something similar, but on their own, they don't appear to be notable. IagoQnsi (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 00:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 April 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 01:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively Merge all to Red vs. Blue. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 23 April 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 04:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Red vs. Blue media. These series are not notable to stand on their own as independent articles. If it helps to achieve consensus, I would support a merge or deletion, but I think a redirect to the media list is the best option. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively Merge all to the List of Red vs. Blue media article. (I struck my previous !vote above.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the same place and for the same reasons as NinjaRobotPirate Adamh4 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm Malibu[edit]

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

There is no claim of notability. There are no reliable sources. A web search for reliable sources comes up empty. The references provided are either PRWEB press releases, claims made directly by Paradigm Malibu, or only identify that the facility has been certified by the Joint Commission. The article makes claims that are not supported by independent sources. SchreiberBike talk 05:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also was unable to find any independent sources about this facility. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:45, 1 May 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Kaplan[edit]

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

Non-notable musician lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find some non-significant sources after a quick google search, but the subject doesn't pass notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Harsh (talk) 07:51, 18 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added 9 hyperlinks from other articles and 6 references. Seems like Kaplan has been involved in a number of music projects with well known artists. --Kbabej (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please list two reliable independent sources with substantial coverage here in this discussion? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can search for them or go to the article. --Kbabej (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did search and go to the article. I don't see any substantial coverage in reliable sources and since you can't or won't provide any I hope the closing admin will take that into account. Not much of an argument if you can't back it up with anything.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:23, 2 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The young commentator[edit]

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

Non-notable book written and self-published by a non-notable author. The author's intentions are good (trying to spur an increase in reading among African youth), but that alone does not make him or his book notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 17 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found four articles about him on AllAfrica.com, three of which mentioned the book briefly. Not enough to satisfy WP:NB yet. Moswento ^talky 08:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:47, 1 May 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 19:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Dreaming of a TV Christmas[edit]

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

An unremarkable clip-compilation one-off TV special. It got a few brief comments in newspapers at the time, but no in-depth reviews, and there isn't really anything to add. No lasting significance. Moswento ^talky 12:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clip show of other shows; non-notable and judging from the Saville connection, won't see air again outside of the tape traders. Nate • (chatter) 18:34, 17 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a thought. Would the Saville connection provide any notability? I know notability isn't inherited (especially in that case!!) but I figured I'd throw it into the pot anyway for consideration. Dragonfire X (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One-off show, nothing which hints at notability (a link to IMDB doesn't count). I mean, yeah, it's got the two Ronnies, which has to count for something, but that's not enough to pass WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I am reluctantly calling this NC. Nobody has spoken in favor of the article, but I'm really hesitant to delete something with only two people arguing for deletion, especially given Mark viking (talk · contribs)'s point about systematic bias. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hipertext.net[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Online journal, not indexed in any selective dayabases. Article creator de-PRODded and added several "independent sources". None of these is actually about the journal, these are simply articles, blogs, and a dissertation, which have cited an article published in this journal. Does not pass WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Previous AfD in November 2013 was closed as "no consensus" because of a lack of participants (and hence no discussion). Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is where applying criteria in WP:NJournals becomes difficult. The About Us page shows that the journal claims to be in 12 indexes, 2 of which are English-based and known to me. Those two are not very selective, but what about the 10 Spanish indices? Are any selective? For non-Spanish speakers like me, how could we reasonably tell? Uncertainty about index quality is not enough justification for a keep, but we'd also like to avoid the systemic bias of "if a journal isn't in a selective English-based index, it isn't worthy of an article". --Mark viking (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NJournals talks about selective major databases. I don't think any of those Spanish databases, even if they hould turn out to be selective, qualifies as "major". --Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 18 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear to meet the journal notability criteria. As Randykitty points out, the indexing requirement is for major databases. I don't have access to any solid citation indices, but there is no indication that this is a highly cited journal. Moswento ^talky 08:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:30, 1 May 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EBillity[edit]

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

Non notable software . The 3rd party references aren't about the software, but rather that it is one of the products Intuit recommended when it dropped one of its own products. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software company article lacking significant independent coverage to establish notability - sources used in article have only incidental mentions of the software of a sentence or two; a search turned up no significant RS coverage; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:29, 1 May 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 01:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L.a. salami[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. References to single plays of his music on local BBC outlets, but no indications of rotation play in any major market, nor any awards, or significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:34, 15 April 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 01:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hartcorn studios[edit]

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

Not a significant studio. Staglit (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be studio of one particular photographer. If he is notable, the article should be about him, and not even a redirect is needed; if he is not, there's no reason for this article either. The article on him was correctly deleted as a BLP Prod a few days ago, for having no sources. The sources here are about him just as much as the studio, and would have been enough to prevent BLP Prod. tho the notability would need discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete with ((db-inc)). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding coverage in reliable sources to establish notability or meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 19:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy Delete A7 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft Big Brother:All In[edit]

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

12th season(?) of which there is no article for any other season. Appears to be an event within Minecraft, making it fail per WP:GNG, WP:WEBCRIT, or WP:GAMECRUFT ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is a really confusing article, as it completely lacks context. From this website[31], it appears to be a fan-made cross-over between Minecraft and the Big Brother (TV series). It pretty clearly fails notability requirements. I'd recommend a speedy delete per A7. (No indication of importance) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 1 May 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) 15:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy A7: A fan-made Big Brother-style contest run in a Minecraft game server world. Fails WP:GAMECRUFT and possibly WP:NOTWEBHOST. This completely non-encyclopedic content would be better hosted at the Big Brother Minecraft Wiki (which doesn't currently have a main page). Ivanvector (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Bourget[edit]

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

Bit of an edge case, this one, so I thought it best to go for discussion to formulate a consensus one way or the other. The article, as it currently exists, is a WP:BLP of a former city councillor sourced only to a deadlink bio on her own political party's dead website, and thus not actually citing the reliable source coverage necessary to properly demonstrate her notability. The edge issue is that while Quebec City is not currently one of the elite group of "world cities" for which a consensus exists that their city councillors are considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles, it is large and internationally well-known enough that an argument could possibly be formulated that it should be added to that list — but it still isn't so large or prominent that we would have an obligation to do so, and even if a consensus were established for their notability, Mme Bourget still wouldn't be entitled to keep an unsourced article. I'm willing to withdraw this if consensus favours deeming Quebec City municipal councillors to be notable enough — but if the consensus opposes that, and/or if the article's sourcing can't be adequately improved to contemporary standards, then this needs to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete City councilors need a lot of coverage to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ann Bourget wouldn't have had an article about her if she had been only an average city councillor. Her notoriety (in the ordinary meaning of the word) and her coverage by the media came from her being a prominent councillor and the leader of the main political party, and as such the best known councillor for a time. I don't know where the rules can be found about how Wikipedia awards the title of "world city", whatever that means. Québec may not be as notable as Topeka, but if being the first (as in oldest) town of Canada, a capital, and a U.N. World Heritage City does not count for being a notable town, well so be it. Anyway, non-notable city councillors of any city, notable or not (the city), should not automatically get an article in Wikipedia. Councillors should get an article only if they're notable enough personally, independently of the city. However, mayors and leaders of main parties of cities are often the object of independent material written about them. Of course, the editors of this article should have sourced it. I guess if nobody has the patience to source it now, this part of history will be left to fall into oblivion as if it never existed. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of determining whether a city councillor is notable enough for a Wikipedia article just for being a city councillor, the city's age is irrelevant to the question. Rather, it's a function of the city having a certain minimum size — while a city in the 500K range might qualify if there's a legitimate reason to believe that there's broad international interest in its local politics or if the article is really substantial and well-sourced, a city only gets an automatic presumption of notability for its city councillors if its population is in the millions (e.g. Toronto, Montreal, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago.) That is, the city has to be so big that an individual councillor actually governs more people than the presidents of some entire countries. And, you know, if you really think that she's notable enough that she should qualify, what exactly is stopping you from contributing some sourcing improvements to get it up to scratch, instead of just idly lamenting the fact that other people haven't done so already? Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your attitude. You're the user who said the article is not sourced. You're upset that agree with that? I'm not your slave. You can't force other users to work on an article not more than other users can force you. And you can't forbid users from offering informations, suggestions and comments in AfD for the sole reason that they are not editors of the article. If you so much dislike the participation of other users in discussions, ignore us. Your systematic unfriendly replies are annoying. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appeared to be arguing both sides of the fence, agreeing that the article is unsourced yet arguing that its deletion would constitute some sort of grand loss to Wikipedia nonetheless, and I was responding to the latter aspect of your comment. And I didn't force you to do anything, nor did I "forbid" you from commenting, either — if you think I did anything of the sort, you might want to adjust your sensitivity settings. My reply was not "unfriendly" or "annoying"; I completely fail to see how it was anything but polite and reasonable. People are allowed to reply to other people's comments in AFD discussions — that's part of the process. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If, as in this case, an article subject distinctly exceeds one part of a notability guideline (being the leader of a major group on the council rather than just a councillor) but falls slightly short on another (as Quebec seems to on the "world cities" criterion), I am prepared to ease up slightly on the sourcing requirements but still look for some evidence of non-local coverage in reliable sources. In this case, the corresponding article on French Wikipedia is better sourced than this one, with at least a couple of fairly definitely reliable sources, one reasonably non-local (Montreal rather than Quebec) but rather routine. Independently of this, there seem to be a couple of references by non-locals to a position paper on immigration to Quebec that she wrote while she was a councillor. This ends up falling just short of what I'd need to support keeping the article - but it is extremely close. PWilkinson (talk) 18:11, 16 April 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. There's a single dead link to a non-reliable source. Hence, it's effectively unsourced, which is fatal for a BLP. If all the facts in the article were to be sourced to third-party independent sources, I would say keep it. If it is ultimately kept, it should be trimmed of everything unsourced, going down to a single sentence if needed. --Rob (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Renouveau municipal de Québec. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, no BLP. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 10 May 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Network for Good[edit]

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

Nominating after prod. This article was created by the eponymous username about seven years ago, and although the blatant marketing has been toned down, no one has produced any sources to establish notability since. Prod was removed by an editor who noted it has a lot of Google hits. ~T P W 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant web presence. It doesn't improve our coverage of charities to pretend it doesn't exist or that it isn't notable. Some of the many many sources evident on the web: New York Times: [32][33][34][35][36][37]. Wall Street Journal: [38][39] Some potentially useful hits from HighBeam: [40][41][42][43]. [44][45]. And this for more detail about the 2005 merger with Groundspring: [46]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VERY poorly sourced as it relies almost 100 percent on it's own website. It fails the notability test, and a "significant web presence" is easy to promote through those NY Times articles (and therefore don't qualify as reliable sources per WP:ADVERT). Dragonfire X (talk) 12:03, 24 April 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 04:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon a source review of those posted above by User:Arxiloxos, this topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos' findings/improvements to the article. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Gongshow talk 19:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Cook[edit]

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

Debbie Cook was a city council member and mayor of Huntington Beach, California, who made an unsuccessful run for the US House. She has not held a notable office, candidates for US house are not notable as such, and nothing else pushes her over the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2008#District 46, where she is already listed with the results until she or someone with the same name passes the notability threshold; could have been attempted prior to AfD. Dru of Id (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. What's the rough cutoff size for cities with respect to mayoral notability? WP:POLOUTCOMES states "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD." Also, the Huffington Post article "Debbie Cook and Larry Kissell: Two Progressive Democrats for Congress" dedicates two paragraphs to her. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Two paragraphs in one publication is not indepth coverage, especially not in multiple sources. That is routine coverage for congressional candidates, but that does not merit creating aritcles on the subjects. Huntington Beach is not a city of the level that the mayor is default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, while Wikipedia policy does not explicitly define any specific arbitrary population cutoff for the notability of mayors, the criterion for mayors is much looser and more flexible than the one for city councillors. In actual fact, mayors are quite frequently kept for cities in the 50K-100K range, and are virtually always kept for cities anywhere above 100K (which Huntington Beach is). Individual city councillors require a city population approaching or exceeding the millions range; mayors do not. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs sourcing improvement, but mayors are considered notable enough for Wikipedia articles in cities the size of Huntington Beach; since by definition a mayor represents a whole city and not just one neighbourhood within it, the inclusion standard for mayors is much looser and allows them to pass our inclusion rules in much smaller cities than the cutoff for city councillors does. And since Huntington Beach is in Orange County, which is an area that's very well-covered by sufficiently reliable media sources, there's no valid reason to believe that the sourcing couldn't be quite easily improved. Flag for refimprove, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 25 April 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 04:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mayor of a city like Huntington Beach is easily notable. Even without the Congressional race I'd still !vote "Keep." A ton of coverage was found while she was mayor and a serious candidate for Congress but is was also very easy to find in-depth coverage even years before and after she was mayor and Congressional candidate.[47][48][49]--Oakshade (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With extremely rare exceptions on the order of Christine O'Donnell (i.e. "national media firestorm"), no amount of coverage makes a congressional candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article if they haven't ever won election to an office notable enough to have an article on that basis. So while she is notable enough for inclusion here, that's exclusively due to the mayoralty itself and the congressional race has nothing to do with it. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not much significant coverage, but there is some. Being the mayor of a city with 200,000 people should also confer notability. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 14:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I would probably lean to a bare keep for a mayor of a city of 189,992, she has had enough media coverage to push her well over the limit. This is a regionally notable city, and her other political activities add to her notability. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 10 May 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 Nashville Star (season 6)#Tommy Stanley. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Stanley[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be enough coverage to demonstrate the subject passes WP:GNG. Further, the article appears to be have been created by the subject (Tstanleymusic (talk · contribs)), with his only contributions being to this article. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ ~~- Do other artists who were on these reality shows have their own wikipedia pages?~~ Changing vote to Redirect per Gene 93K Bali88 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nashville Star (season 6)#Tommy Stanley. Even though all reality show contestants get a certain amount of press, coming 8th isn't sufficient to establish notability without meeting other criteria of WP:MUSBIO. I can't find reviews by professional critics or any evidence of chart success. Much of this article reads more like a fansite than an encyclopedia article, so merging the entire article would be inappropriate (it's only ok to say things like "His edgy-soulful technique has really set him apart from other singer/songwriters" if that's a quote and it's properly attributed). But maybe could do a selective merge to Nashville Star (season 6)#Tommy Stanley if there are reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 April 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 04:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nashville Star (season 6)#Tommy Stanley. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence in reliable sources to establish notability for this person independent of the TV show. Gongshow talk 19:32, 1 May 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 deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LooneyDeals.com[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. CSD continually removed by related SPA. Should be CSD'd. reddogsix (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 1 May 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seo Gyung Deok[edit]

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

I do not see any evidence of notability , academic or otherwise DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:26, 1 May 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.