< 9 May	11 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. If the text is needed, ask any administrator for userfication.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sung-kyung[edit]

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

She only seems to be a music video actress-also she has yet to be in this tv show that it is mentioned here that apparently has not aired yet. Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, too soon. I recommend moving it as a subpage for Abui91. Once Lee Sung-kyung has done enough, it can be moved back. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 22:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 3 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, czar ♔ 23:40, 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!} 10:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yeong-duk[edit]

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

Procedural AfD, since the article was PRODed and contested. I am somewhat neutral on notability. He could maybe satisfy WP:PROF C6, if the Institute for Basic Science is deemed a "major academic institution". Due to the inconsistent way citation databases treat Korean names, finding a citation track record is very hard. What worries me is that some of the claims to fame previously listed in the article appear to have been blatantly false.T R 12:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC) T R 12:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Difficult, as one doesn't know what name he published under and cites can be assessed. Until then Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Searching finds no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Negligible citations and nothing else notable. -- 101.117.89.99 (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has some quite highly cited papers (e.g. 854 Google scholar cites for "Observation of reactor electron antineutrinos disappearance in the RENO experiment", 203 for "Limits on WIMP-nucleon interactions with CsI(Tl) crystal detectors", and 186 for "The MSU Miniball 4π fragment detection array") but these are articles with many researchers (34, 28, and 14 respectively) and his name appears in a non-distinguished place in them, so it is difficult to tell how much if any impact we can credit him with. The only high-impact citation with him as first author that I found was 147 cites for "Intermediate mass fragment emission in Ar 36+ 197 Au collisions at E/A= 35 MeV". I don't think that's enough to make a clear case for WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see another notability criterion for him to pass in its place. But there are a lot of papers by "Y.D. Kim" only some of which are his so I could easily have missed some in my search. In any case we need enough sources about the subject but not by him to form the basis of an encyclopedia article, and I don't see those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems to be failing WP:PROF, no-one is able to argue otherwise so far.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 18 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!} 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Ghalib (Pakistani TV series)[edit]

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

Not sure how Express entertainment works, bt the article just lists info from that ref and links to Facebook, maybe more info is needed, but this does appear to be a AFD right now. Wgolf (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article text was obviously a copyvio and has been removed, leaving a one-line, unreferenced stub. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah just saw the edits you did-thanks. Since I have no clue how television shows work in Asia, I am really not sure what exactly Express TV is. Wgolf (talk) 04:30, 28 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 03:17, 3 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, czar ♔ 23:38, 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!} 10:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rosenberg (publisher)[edit]

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

Long-term unreferenced biography, presumably BLP. Unable to find reliable secondary sources which evidence the notability of this fellow. If we had an article on the publishing house, I'd have no qualms about a redirect, but as near as I can tell we don't. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can see a couple of listings of this person as a bookseller but nothing indicating biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 3 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, czar ♔ 23:38, 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!} 10:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of subnotebooks[edit]

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

Comparison of individual products/models. Wikipedia is not a catalog. This is an article that is perpetually out of date. An encyclopedia shouldn't duplicate a consumer electronics retailer's product comparison tool. If the point of the list is not to list current models but all subnotebook models ever manufactured, then the problem is much more clearly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page in May 2008 from a previous page. At that time, 7-9 inch netbooks were attracting significant interest for the surprising sales volume of a low cost device that shipped with a Linux operating system. Tablets and lower priced Ultrabooks have eaten up the market now. The Netbook article covers this now. The EeePC was influential and groundbreaking, and so has its own article, but most of the more recent devices aren't groundbreaking and don't warrant much interest anymore. The EeePC article notes "In January 2013, Asus officially ended production of their Eee PC series due to declining sales as a result of consumers favoring tablets and Ultrabooks over netbooks" and so there isn't much point in listing the comparison between 7-9 inch devices as there was when they were seen as influential in the future of the space. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 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, czar ♔ 23:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:44, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dnyaneshwar Mulay[edit]

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

Weak sources. The entire article is written in a non- neutral manner Uncletomwood (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I agree that this reads like a tribute to Mulay, the references are not weak. The Hindu calls him "Well-known Marathi author Dnyaneshwar Mulay". Also, he was the Ambassador of India to Maldives. Along with him being Member of Advisory Board, Sahitya Akademi. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:36, 3 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, czar ♔ 23:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, albeit the article needs a rewrite for tone and npov, the person is notable enough to warrant an article, and there are sources availible. --Soman (talk) 23:54, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Construction Group[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable company. The references are either local references to minor philanthropies, or routine articles about specific construction projects or pure press releases such as the laudatory "interview" in Southeast Construction", a regional trade magazine.

Promotional aspects are the list of routine types of construction undertaken, which belongon the website or an advertisement, and a list of the routine normal philantropies of any business enterprise. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:CORP Secret ^account 17:12, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 3 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, czar ♔ 23:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable company. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:34, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Por Amor de Ti, Oh Brasil[edit]

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

Prod expired and it was requested to be restored. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 26 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 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Diante do Trono. A search for sources did not turn up enough sources (in quantity or quality) to pass WP:NMUSIC. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:27, 9 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, czar ♔ 23:35, 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!} 10:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tua Visão[edit]

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

Prod expired and it was requested to be restored. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 26 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 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Diante do Trono. A search for sources did not turn up enough sources (in quantity or quality) to pass WP:NMUSIC. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:26, 9 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, czar ♔ 23:35, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CoSwitched[edit]

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

Rather new company that just launched in March, maybe in the future if ever this be a good article, but for now it's a AFD. Wgolf (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 26 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The references show the company founder is one Bruno Duarte; this article was contributed by User:Duartebruno; I have added a WP:COI warning. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The M2MEvolution and MVNODynamics pieces are the closest to being references, but are effectively just typical coverage that any start-up needs, not evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:00, 2 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, czar ♔ 23:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ARTPLUS[edit]

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

Seems to be more like an advertisement for an upcoming company. This could be a page to have in the near future-but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 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, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources enough to warrant a pass against WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 09:40, 2 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, czar ♔ 23:34, 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!} 10:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bryant (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, not elected at any level. Fails WP:BIO, no substantial sources that show notability. Tassedethe (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Candedates are not considered notable. Isn't the usual practice to redirect to the article on the election. --Dmol (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2014#District 2, where he's already appropriately included. Dru of Id (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Note This candidate is not listed at that page as that is the US House of Representatives election; the candidate is standing in District 2 of the Ohio House of Representatives. As far as I can see there are no pages on Ohio state level elections. Tassedethe (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what made me think I saw it. :/ Dru of Id (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came across this article a couple of months ago and removed all of the promotional stuff. I made the mistake of editing in the US House of Representatives rather than District 2. I see he is running uncontested in the primary [1], but he probably has little chance of winning district 2. However, I'm willing to have the article moved to my user space until we see the outcome of the election this fall. It looks like every member of the Ohio House of Representatives has an article here, so he would need one. If he loses, I would just have it deleted from my user space. I am One of Many (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:POLITICIAN, candidates to the U.S. House with no significant coverage are not notable and should be deleted. A candidate to a State House with no significant coverage is even less notable and should also be deleted. Tiller54 (talk) 11:41, 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 no consensus.

Wow, this was a mess to figure out. Looking over the history of the previous AfD's, only the first one seems relevant. The 2nd and 3rd nominations where both closed for procedural reasons, without any real debate. And, just to add confusion, there appears to be two 2nd nominations, but one of them (for reasons that I cannot fathom) is a redirect to the other. The reason I mention all this is because it makes the Keep per all the other past debates comment seem not as strong an argument as it might appear at first.

Anyway, numerically, there are more people arguing Keep than Delete, but some of the Keep arguments don't strike me as being particularly policy based, so I'm going to call this No Consensus. Which of course defaults to the article being kept (but with no bias against future AfD nominations).

What I find most interesting is that the 1st nomination (4-1/2 years ago) drew an overwhelming Keep consensus. I'm not sure if policy has changed since then, or the community has evolved their thinking, or it's just luck of the draw who happened to participate in the two AfDs.

-- RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I recently CSD'd this under A7, though an admin declined it since it was not an "incontestable" deletion and suggested AfD. After looking into this article's talk page, I see it previously went through 3 AfD's and was kept due to many reliable third-party sources covering him. However, I am renominating due to WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:BIO1E. The "1E" in this instance being his death. Granted this was a widely publicized event, but it was essentially the only thing he was noted for. All the sources are essentially regurgitating the same thing. Due to most sources only talking about him briefly, he should be redirected to Kennedy family or deleted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He isn't notable simply for dying; he's notable for being a child born to a sitting United States President. As such, there has surely been plenty of discussion of this child in sources, both at the time and in years since. Everyking (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He's notable for being a child born to a sitting United States President" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions per WP:INHERIT. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say his notability is inherited. I said the world viewed him as notable in light of his paternity. If the world viewed him instead as notable for the manner of his death, or if the world just thought he was an especially adorable baby, it's all the same—notable is notable. Everyking (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable in light of his paternity" is basically an WP:INHERIT argument since it suggests he was notable for his family affiliations. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable because people viewed him as important and worthy of attention. He's not automatically notable because he had a famous father. He's notable because having a famous father led to him receiving a great deal of attention from the wider world. Do you not understand the difference? Everyking (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The attention only came from one event though (living for two days before succumbing to respiratory issues), which is why I mention WP:BIO1E and also WP:NOTNEWS. He also fails WP:ANYBIO. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Alternatively merge to Kennedy family. Sadly, in his few hours on earth he did not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A third of what was written about him was actually about IRDS (IRDS today, to be precise). I removed irrelevant information, but suspect it will be reinserted because hardly anything else can be said about the child (which is actually very telling). The section title called "Biography" sounds rather silly, really. Surtsicna (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether this is conceptualized as a notable event or a notable person (which is what WP:BIO1E is about), it remains notable. So whether it's called "Death of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy" or "Patrick Bouvier Kennedy", it's certainly encyclopedic. I think the material covered fits more comfortably as an article separate from a "Kennedy family" article. And Surtsicna's prophesy, I think, should be fulfilled. Material about IRDS belongs here, because Patrick's death was the first major well-known death from this syndrome; and for the historical information to be useful it should in fact be contrasted with current information. - Nunh-huh 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he could be redirected to the page on IRDS or a page listing victims of IRDS. WP:BIO1E indicates that one event alone is generally not enough to make someone notable. I could be missing something, but I don't see anything on "Surtsicna's prophesy" in this article. As previously indicated, all the sources available on him are essentially regurgitating the same thing: He lived for two days before succumbing to IRDS. Definitely seems like a case of WP:NOTNEWS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the other past debates. The subject was incredibly notable at the time of his death -- headline news for days and days -- and once notable, always notable. His death triggered a series of events that lead to Jackie K.O. going on the only political trip of her life. Her frozen face on the image at the right spoke not only of the grief of the loss of her husband, literally in her lap, but of the continuing postpartum depression to which she suffered. The problem is not one of notability, but that there's not many online sources about the subject, who died decades before the Internet. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't whether sources are online or print. The issue is that he fails WP:ANYBIO and is a case of WP:NOTNEWS, which states "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic". Clear case of WP:BIO1E. How his death affected his family doesn't exactly make him notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that his death affected the whole world, and that his death lead, by way on unhappy coincidences, to the death of his father. I am citing, first, an example of but for causation. Secondly, his death was major news, not just the BLPOE type of news, but headline, history-making, serious people reported and read this, for the record, sort of news. Not all news is the same. The single event, or series of events, he is associated with, changed history. To further quote WP:BLP: "John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." There has been consistent coverage of the death of the subject. If it matters, I would not oppose a move to Death of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy. Finally, paper sources could be used to better source the article, the impact of his death, etc. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would be willing to change my opinion if there were, in fact, continuing coverage of PBK the same way as there has been of John Hinckley, Jr, but I don't see it. Please, show me. --GRuban (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are dozens of Google Books hits since 2000. Abductive (reasoning) 03:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, as the raw number of sources mentioning a subject is not by itself an indicator of notability per WP:MASK and WP:HITS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sigh. Snuggums, first, I'm pretty sure I explained about that link, in a different discussion where we disagreed. I asked for sources. Just now. Right above. This is a response to my request. Anyway, Abductive, I clicked that link. The first result is "Sizwe's Test: A Young Man's Journey Through Africa's AIDS ...Jonny Steinberg - A heartbreaking tale of shame and pride, sex and death, and a continent's battle with its demons". The second is "How We Die There are many books intended to help people deal with the trauma of bereavement, but few which explore the reality of death itself". The third is "St. Lucy's Home for Girls Raised by Wolves". I see absolutely nothing there that looks like in depth writing about Patrick Bouvier Kennedy. Two, in fact, seem to be works of fiction. Please, be specific; where is the coverage? --GRuban (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, you did ask for such results. I simply felt it should be noted that google search results alone aren't enough to establish notability. If talking about referral to WP:ATA, it's not like I was simply saying "see WP:HITS" or anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP1E does not apply, since there are at least three events: His birth, his death, and his impact on medicine. Abductive (reasoning) 03:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one event: his (brief) life. I also still fail to see how he passes WP:BIO. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have to pass WP:BIO, he passes the GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 05:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would it take to convince you of his notability, Snuggums? Are there any sources we could provide that you would accept as proving the case? Everyking (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Article was WP:N and WP:GNG per very strong consensus in 2009, so therefore it still is per WP:NTEMP. Nothing can change the past unless we want to start rewriting history due to POV which appears to be the case here. CSD A7? Really? VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you there is no POV here. Only reason I A7'd it is because I hadn't previously known of 3 past AfD's. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A PROD or an inital AfD would have been appropriate, but CSD A7 is only to be used if there is little if any doubt. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite confident that there was little to no doubt, but that was before seeing 3 previous AfD's. I admittedly should've checked beforehand, though. If it wasn't for those past AfD's, I would've PROD'd after the CSD A7 was declined. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is an entire bibliography of print sources about the subject's death here in a book about the Kennedy family and a three-paragraph biography in The Encyclopedia of Motherhood, a description of how Patrick's death actually changed public opinion of the President. There is also a fuller description of the effect on his parents and how it lead to them being together on November 22, 1963. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would make no sense to redlink this so delete is inappropriate and this nomination was also inappropriate. Whether the article becomes redirected, merged or kept is a matter far better dealt with at the talk page and this flexibility is best handled under a keep banner. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not explained how anything here is "inappropriate" or why it should be kept. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you have not explained why you have disregarded the first instruction in WP:Articles for deletion, namely "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." You have said in your nomination that in your opinion deletion is not required and that redirection would suffice. Therefore you should not have come to AFD. Thincat (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got my point all wrong. I was giving redirect as an alternative, and articles can be brought back to AfD if problems brought up in previous AfD's have not been addressed. One issue that is not resolved since first AfD is that he does not have much notability independent of his family affiliations. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:45, 21 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. The strongest points are made in favor of deletion. As RomanSpa points out, victims of terrorist activities are not automatically notable Guerillero | My Talk 03:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordan Gallagher[edit]

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

Subject is one of over three and a half thousand victims of the Northern Ireland ethnic violence from the late sixties till recently. While every death is a tragedy, few if any are notable for an encyclopedia. The contributing editor has created dozens of articles regarding individual victims, none of them individually notable. I had speedied the three I am adding to AFD now, but that was rejected on the basis that they had "plenty of sources", but this is not the case. Some only had a few refs, and these tended to be news stories that do not confer notability.

(Note that some of these articles have already been speedied.)

The AFD for other similar articles have said there may be a possibility of a merge to other articles. While I disagree (due to the risk of "indiscriminate lists), I'll throw the suggestion out there for discussion. Dmol (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The killing is notable and adequately documented, even if the person is not otherwise notable. Eastmain (talk •

Comment. Can you advise WHY you think the killing was notable.--Dmol (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)contribs) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Move to Killing of Gordan Gallagher? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There would probably have been significant coverage at the time in British and Irish newspapers, but verifying this would probably require access to hard-copy or microfilm collections of newspapers. If anyone has access to the archives of The Times or other newspapers that hide their archives behin a paywall, perhaps they could check there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Eastmain, but you still have not demonstrated why these particular deaths are notable for an encyclopedia. No-one disputes that the killings made the papers at the time. But so do traffic accidents, muggings, non-terrorism related killings, missing people, etc. This does not mean that the death is in any way notable. Do you contend that all victims of the Troubles (over 3500 of them) are worthy of inclusion. If so, then we would have to add all the victims from Sudan, Congo, Ukraine, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. If this is not the idea you want, what makes these examples different. Nothing does. They were sad tragic events that happened on an almost daily basis for thirty years.--Dmol (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll repeat what I have already said in a similar debate: Whilst any death is tragic, and deaths due to natural disasters and conflicts, declared or undeclared, seem particularly so, it is our policy that the subjects of articles must be notable. For this reason we do not have articles on every soldier killed in a war, every victim of a pandemic, or everyone who died in a horrific disaster, though we will probably have articles on the war, pandemic or disaster in question. We do have articles about people who have died in such circumstances, but only where those people were already notable for other reasons. Although Mr Gallagher's death was a tragedy he himself was not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would suggest that the killing and its aftermath is notable, especially for the family's drive to seek answers from a still-current political figure who was in charge of the Derry IRA at the time. Of course we cannot list all such deaths, but we can at least list notable ones, if only to represent the others. However it is not, and was not, intended as a personal memorial. Fergananim (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't make this particular person notable. We cannot have articles about people simply because questions are asked about their deaths, even if these questions are directed at current politicians. The correct place for covering such questions is in articles about the tragic events in question, and, where there are suitable references, in the articles about any notable people involved or implicated. Mr Gallagher himself was not a notable person, and he does not acquire notability through his death or because questions about his death are being directed at some notable person. Without wishing to seem callous, my point is that Mr Gallagher himself could have been replaced by another person: then that other person would have featured in the tragic events, their family would be asking questions, and the same basic questions would still be directed at the notable person mentioned. The context in which the killing took place is certainly notable, and we do indeed have coverage of that in Wikipedia (as we should). But an article on Mr Gallagher does not belong here, any more than we should have articles on the individual victims of 9/11. RomanSpa (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We also certainly can't mention some victims, to "represent the others": we are not in a position to decide who might or might not be chosen as representatives, and would be required to make invidious comparisons entirely outside the scope of this project. RomanSpa (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not a clue what makes this boy and his death notable. Secondly, it don't have the idea that the article is neutral enough. No idea why Martin McGuinness is featured here. The Banner talk 22:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wikipedia is not a memorial and I cannot see from the article in its present form what criterion would elevate this particular tragedy above the 3,000-odd other deaths during the war. Fergananim, above, attempts to establish notability on the basis that the victim's parents "seek answers". As painful as their situation is, I do not recognise that their valid and poignant desire is sufficient reason to include this victim as an encyclopaedia entry. The project does not exist either to validate such deserving people nor to provide moral support for the victims of injustice. If their search for answers actually yielded any, perhaps such answers could change the narrative in a way that might carry an article such as this across the threshhold of notability, since murderers so rarely provide satisfaction. — O'Dea (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note following recent edits. I am extraordinarily unhappy with recent edits to this article, which consist largely of highly emotive quotations. These quotations do not in any way affect the informational content of the article, but seem to me to be calculated to produce an emotional response that will tend to bias contributions to this debate. RomanSpa (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While one person out of so many becomes notable is hard to explain, but the sources are multiple, in depth, and involve analysis over time. He is notable WP:GNG.I am One of Many (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's also worth noting that this and similar articles in any case are covered by established Wikipedia policy, as covered at WP:VICTIM; victims of terrorism are Not Notable per existing policy. RomanSpa (talk) 13:30, 18 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!} 10:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Glover[edit]

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

Subject is one of over three and a half thousand victims of the Northern Ireland ethnic violence from the late sixties till recently. While every death is a tragedy, few if any are notable for an encyclopedia. The contributing editor has created dozens of articles regarding individual victims, none of them individually notable. I had speedied the three I am adding to AFD now, but that was rejected on the basis that they had "plenty of sources", but this is not the case. Some only had a few refs, and these tended to be news stories that do not confer notability.

(Note that some of these articles have already been speedied.)

The AFD for other similar articles have said there may be a possibility of a merge to other articles. While I disagree (due to the risk of "indiscriminate lists), I'll throw the suggestion out there for discussion. Dmol (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find that I must again repeat what I have already said in a couple of similar cases currently under discussion: Whilst any death is tragic, and deaths due to natural disasters and conflicts, declared or undeclared, seem particularly so, it is our policy that the subjects of articles must be notable. For this reason we do not have articles on every soldier killed in a war, every victim of a pandemic, or everyone who died in a horrific disaster, though we will probably have articles on the war, pandemic or disaster in question. We do have articles about people who have died in such circumstances, but only where those people were already notable for other reasons. Although Mr Glover's death was a tragedy he himself was not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 07:50, 14 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 WITHDRAWN by nominator.[2] postdlf (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of the mothers of the Safavid Shahs[edit]

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

A list of the mothers of rulers who dont appear to be noteable in their own right. As per WP:NOTINHERITED these dont appear to fall under WP:NOTE in there own right (one exception noticed but a list of one would be a strange list to keep) Amortias (T)(C) 21:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Amortias (T)(C) 21:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn author intends to develop article so happy to let it stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 22:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello. My intention is to further widen the article's significance, by creating separate pages for the women. Quite a few of them played significant roles actually, like all queen-mothers did in the various West Asian empires/harems. Therefore, I want to keep the article. LouisAragon (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thats reasonable might be best to put an under construction tag on the page so people are aware of your intentions - details can be found here Template:Under_construction. Amortias (T)(C) 21:08, 15 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Harry Potter[edit]

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

This is probably the most poorly-written mish-mash of nonsense I've ever come across in Wikipedia. It lacks cohesion, is poorly sourced, and seems to have become a platform for editors' pet theories on the topic rather than a substantive analysis. The subject itself is trivial and should be merely a brief mention on the main article relating to the book series. In short, this article is unencyclopaedic and ought to be deleted. Crazeworry (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as multiple books have been written about it including:

Harry Potter and the Millennials: Research Methods and the Politics of the Muggle Generation
The Politics of Harry Potter
Political Issues in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter Series
The Politics in Harry Potter Novels
The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon
Harry Potter and Politics: A Case Study of Political Factions in the Literary Realm

Andrew (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search on JSTOR brought up a surprisingly large number of articles about Harry Potter and politics. Looking through the sources on the Wikipedia page, I saw multiple reliable sources. Most of the reliable sources came from media sites. However, I also saw a source from a legitimate law journal. This article needs massive clean-up and most of the stuff based on primary sources should be removed. However, there are many, many sources on politics and Harry Potter so it easily meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't say that I agree with the nominator. There's a bit of synthesis and some weak sourcing in the article, but it's not unsalvageable. This isn't as scholarly as I'd like, but it does contain many direct quotations from reliable sources. Based on the nomination, I was expecting to find a much worse article. The topic itself is notable, and the article is fixable through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:03, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Rental Market Report[edit]

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

Possibly non notable--the refs are various places that use it for data, not references to it. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be one of a number of similar reports produced by various real estate/property management groups in the Manhattan area, no particular notability; the reports themselves seem to be promotional and intended to seek business. Article itself is very spammy. Risker (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two references for a whole article and both of them are primary - the other "10 refs" just refer to "further reading" - just added to try to keep the article - spam. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an advert masquerading as an article; non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - If you google MNS rental market report you'll noticed hundreds of examples of actual real world use over the last 8 years. The data has been sourced by the NY Times, NY Daily News, NY Post, AMNY, The Real Deal, Curbed, etc. The data is extremely valuable and worthwhile, as well as free for public consumption. The reports are widely used resources in the NYC market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.24.98 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Here is an article from the NY Daily News Today sourcing the report: After short-lived lull, Manhattan rents heat up again in April — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.24.98 (talk) 17:19, 15 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 soft delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last Chance to See Cuba[edit]

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

WP:NOTE Appears to be a single episode not series of episodes. Ghits only revelaed links to the various sites it was able to be viewed upon, no reference to any impact of the show or noteability thereof Amortias (T)(C) 21:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 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 keep. Guerillero | My Talk 03:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Schlossberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, no significant coverage in any reliable third-party sources. While it was previously argued in past AfD's that the article met WP:GNG, here is what I see when looking at the references:

ref#1 (Boston Common): Only one brief passing mention.
ref#2 (Interfaith Family): Only one brief passing mention.
ref#3 (Newsday): Does not even mention him explicitly at all.
ref#4 (New York Post): An unreliable tabloid. Even if it was reliable, quotes/comments from himself, friends, and family are not third-party sources, which is what this link mainly consists of (assuming the quotes weren't just made up)
ref#5 (CNN): Something he wrote himself. In other words, primary source. Primary sources do not add to notability.
ref#6 (Today): A list of random facts about him. Trivial coverage.
~~ref#7 (New York Times): Self-written piece. Primary source.~~
ref#8 (Irish Central): Interview of him. Primary source.
ref#9 (PBS): Only one brief passing mention.
ref#10 (JFK Library): Too closely affiliated with his family, therefore not third-party.

Most of the sources available that cover him are simply trivial mentions in news outlets and/or simply gossip, which is where I also bring up WP:NOTNEWS. If not redirected to Kennedy family, this article needs to be deleted and stay that way unless he gets significant non-trivial independent coverage from multiple reliable third-party sources. It might perhaps even need to be salted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salt? He's JFK's only grandson and he "aspires to pursue a career in politics" so I don't think you want to salt it. Keep. The article is essentially similar to our many articles on Prince Flupperty of Batten-Bergen-Batten and so forth. We don't have actual princes over here but this guy's near enough. The Post may be unreliable but it's certainly notable (they sell it all the place here, and I live in Boston) and that's the operative characteristic we're looking for in determining notability rather than if certain facts are correct. And it's a substantial article. So is the one by Today -- yeah it's trivial (what do you want, he's a teenager) but it's substantial, and Today is a big deal. It's not local-access cable or something. The other ref's fill it out and the guy's notable. Maybe he shouldn't be but welcome to America. 4th nom? Give it up. Herostratus (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid for deletion discussions, and so is WP:WAX. "Aspires to pursue"..... we don't really know for sure that he'll end up doing so. Seems like a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Being JFK's only grandson also is trivial and an argument to avoid per WP:INHERIT. Whether NY Post is reliable or not, that article isn't a third-party source as it consists mainly of quotes/comments supposedly from Jack himself, family, and friends. Interviews and closely affiliated subjects talking about a person doesn't count as notable coverage. Sales of a source aren't what matters, reliability of source is and verifiability are higher priorities. Today is most certainly reliable, but it doesn't provide very significant detail on him. What we would need is multiple reliable THIRD-PARTY sources providing significant non-trivial coverage for him to be notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid for deletion discussions per WP:NOTAGAIN However, it's not an argument to avoid per common sense. There's just no percentage in banging your head against the wall. The ""Aspires to pursue..." is just an argument against salting. Since under the circumstances it's reasonably likely that he'll at the very least be a major party candidate for Congress someday, it seems silly to make is such that we can never have an article about him without jumping through special hoops. As to the Post, the article has a byline -- one Jerry Oppenheimer -- and he wrote it an the Post editors approved its publication. If Oppenheimer chose to make his coverage mostly just raw quotes from the subject (doesn't look like that to me, but whatever), maybe he's busy or lazy or that's just how he rolls. It' still a significantly developed article (not just a quick mention or whatever) with a report's byline in a notable publication. Herostratus (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to have to say it, but WP:NOTAGAIN is still an argument to avoid for deletion discussions even if it doesn't look like common sense. Keep in mind, I also suggested a redirect to the Kennedy family page. Notability of publications is not what WP:GNG is concerned about. It requires multiple reliable THIRD-PARTY sources giving the subject significant independent coverage. Family and friends are not third-party, and niether are comments from Jack himself. Will he ever go through with political ambitions and run for congress or anything? Perhaps, but it is WP:TOOSOON to know such things. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The essays on Wikipedia are not rules or guidelines. They are largely contradictory and not part of a coherent system. One can cite essays all day long to support any position one wants. If you cite an essay, at least explain why you are doing so, not just blindly citing something as if it was an unbending truth, appealing to its authority. They are just opinions, and generalized ones, not always applicable, have no power as a rule or guideline, nor do they have consensus. -- GreenC 05:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:ONLYESSAY and WP:ONLYGUIDELINE are both arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of political ambitions, he's a certified celebrity: People magazine (last week), Huff Post (last February) The Daily Mail (last November). Pburka (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable sources. Especially not Daily Mail, which has been repeatedly declared unreliable at WP:RSN. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, are you claiming that an article dedicated to the subject in People is not an indication of notability? Pburka (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly doesn't indicate notability because of WP:NOTNEWS and also since People is a gossip magazine with frequent bias and/or false reports. Questionable reliability at best. Even if it was reliable, Lauren Bush doesn't really count as third-party since she (in a way) worked with him. Neither is Kennedy Library foundation as it's too closely affiliated with his family. That Huffington Post link is also not third-party since it revolves around commentary from himself and his friends/classmates. Plus, it revolves around gossip (WP:NOTNEWS again comes into play here). I also see you've removed the New York Times piece Jack wrote himself. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood WP:INDEPENDENT. Lauren Bush didn't write the People article, and his friends didn't write the Huff Post article. Pburka (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, his friends didn't write the piece, but the article relies on quote from his friends. She didn't write it, but quote from someone working with the person doesn't exactly count as third-party. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the other AfD and DRV discussions, in particular the last one which went on for about 2 months and involved dozens of editors. Nothing has changed in the intervening 7 weeks. -- GreenC 05:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not much has changed, but not for the reasons you seem to have in mind. He actually does NOT meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in any reliable third-party sources. What you've overlooked is how the only sources that give him significant coverage are unreliable and/or not third-party. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AFD ended on 16 March 2014. The nominator argued to delete there, didn't get his way, so decided to start up the same AFD again. That's gaming the system. Reliable sources give him significant coverage. Someone's personal opinion about those sources is not relevant here, since Wikipedia considers them reliable sources. Dream Focus 09:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Notable individual, plenty of sources dedicated to him, meets WP:GNG without problems.--cyclopia ^speak! 12:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no reliable third-party sources that give him significant coverage. In other words, commentary from friends, classmates, himself, and family affiliations do NOT count as notable coverage. This keeps getting overlooked in regards to WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These ARE third party sources. Your definition of independent source is inconsistent with the generally accepted definition. When a journalist for People magazine reports on Mr. Schlossberg, she is an independent third party. That she may choose to selectively report quotes from people associated with Mr. Schlossberg doesn't detract from that. (If she were to quote them fully, with no editorial role, it would not be independent, but that is not the case here.) Additionally, these are reliable sources. While People may not be a reliable source for scientific topics or international affairs, it should be considered a reliable source within the scope of celebrity and popular culture. Pburka (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People is a questionable source at best for such an area as they're a gossip magazine. "Reliable gossip magazine" is an oxymoron. When talking about celebs, they are often biased and/or fabricated. Even for the reports they give that aren't false (i.e. reporting that a celeb couple has ended their relationship), they often favor one celeb over the other within their writings. Huffington Post is known for often being biased and/or fraudulent in things like politics, science, medicine, and celebs. Daily Mail has been repeatedly declared unreliable at WP:RSN for continuous fraudulence. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable gossip magazine" is not an oxymoron. Some gossip magazines just make up stuff wholesale, but People is reasonably respectable, is (or was) an arm of Time-Warner, and employs fact-checkers. Since the doings of people like Mr Schlossberg is exactly the sort of thing they focus on, they're probably fairly reliable in that narrow area. I would not consider People a reliable source for the estimated mass of the Andromeda Galaxy or whether the Central African Republic is in a de facto civil war. At the same time, I wouldn't consider Astronomy or Foreign Affairs a reliable source for whether people are buzzing about Jennifer Warner and Robert Pattinson being seen holding hands, because that's not their area of expertise. Herostratus (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as affiliations with Time Inc or Time Warner go, I think you've confused publishers with writers. Time Inc/Warner does the publishing for pieces, not the writing. The writers are what reliability is concerned with. Time magazine itself for example has very different writers than People does, and is unquestionably more reliable than People whether one counts People as a reliable source or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but publisher means something. It wouldn't make business sense for Time-Warner to publish an egriously unreliable magazine because its reputation would not help their effort to sell copies of Time magazine. Look, People has fact-checkers. It doesn't make business sense for them to not to try to be reasonably accurate. If People reports "Leonardo DeCaprio was seen escorting Megan Fox to the Angry Young Popes concert" then you may be reasonably assured that 1) the reporter saw them together or 2) was told this by someone the reporter (who has a career and reputation to uphold) considers reliable, and 3) a fact-checker called DeCaprio and/or Fox's publicists and probably got a confirmation or at least not a denial, and 3) an editor, also with a career and reputation to uphold, decided she was confident enough in all that to publish it. Of course they make mistakes, every publication makes mistakes. There was a thing a few months ago where they made a stupid mistake -- published a photo of a person that was actually a different person -- and it was in the news and they were embarassed and probably the person responsible got fired. They weren't like "What difference does it make?" because it doesn't fit their business model to not care if the stuff they publish is true or not. Herostratus (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps People isn't "egregiously unreliable", but it still often has biased writers. Certainly more reliable than Star magazine, InTouch, OK! magazine, or Perez Hilton, I will give you that. However, they often have poor support for claims. A recurring example I've seen in sources such as that (and the ones I previously indicated were unreliable) is where they have a quote with things like "sources say" or "according to a source" and don't give the name of such "sources". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Something he wrote himself is not a primary source if CNN published it, nor is something a primary source simply because it's an interview. The People and Huffington Post stories are indeed reliable. Nightscream (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'd be surprised if something he wrote himself is not considered primary source. The writer is more of the concern than publisher. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well no. What matters is that some third party has made the editorial choice. Interviews are not primary sources, at least not overall; specific quotes from an interview would be primary, but that is another matter. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't exactly say interviews are third-party sources, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article was (quite rightly) deleted back in 2011, but it's pretty clear notability & level of media coverage has changed since then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been more coverage since 2011, but we have to ask the following about whether a source helps fulfill GNG:

Is the source reliable?
Is it third-party (not relying on commentary from himself or those affiliated with him such as friends, classmates, teachers, or family)?
Does it contain non-trivial coverage?

So far, all the sources fail at least one of those criteria. The closest source available to meet GNG is the Today reference. While it might look like it contains significant coverage, it simply is a list of random facts and trivia about him. Medium-level coverage at best. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your second criteria is absolutely non standard (relying on commentary from himself or those affiliated with him is perfectly acceptable in a third party source). Also "a list of random facts and trivia" is still comprehensive third party coverage. --cyclopia ^speak! 19:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should've phrased it differently. The point I was trying to make is that self-discussion/self-promotion doesn't count as notable coverage, and neither do pieces he writes regardless of depth as he is not a third-party source. Pieces written on him by those closely affiliated with him also do not count as notable, as third-party sources exclude family, friends, teachers, employers, classmates, enemies, and others affiliated with subject of article. Primary sources aren't necessarily bad/unreliable, but Wikipedia needs reliable secondary sources not closely affiliated with subject to fulfill notability criteria. There is not enough reliable secondary coverage on him (that isn't from subjects affiliated with him) to meet notability criteria. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per XXSNUGGUMSXX p b p 23:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gave my reasons at previous nominations. This is 4th, how much more is needed for some people to stop with this nominations. Einstein had a definition for insanity.--SadarMoritz (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned, WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From NOTAGAIN: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged" -- GreenC 23:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, "simply referring" to it would be something like "See WP:NOTAGAIN". The reason I bring up WP:NOTAGAIN is how it states that the number of nominations is not something to address in an AfD. It also reads: "An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion". One thing not addressed his how most mentions of him are trivial. Arguments brought up here that weren't brought up before include how many of the sources are closely affiliated with subject (i.e. self-written pieces, interviews, family organizations) and therefore not third-party. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person said they gave their reasons at the previous nominator. You can go there and read if you wanted to. Should be obvious they believe the significant coverage in reliable sources means the person passes the general notability guidelines, since that's what everyone said then, and are saying now. Kindly stop beating a dead horse and drop the stick already. Dream Focus 01:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Schlossberg was in the news again today, this time in the New York Daily News. Reuters and other sources also covered the story, but the coverage in the Daily News focuses specifically on John Schlossberg. Pburka (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as reliability goes, I'm not too sure about this one. Are there any more reliable sources on the event? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Daily News is generally a reliable source. It's a newspaper with wide circulation and editorial oversight. It's widely cited on Wikipedia, such as in the Bill de Blasio article. As I said, other sources (such a Reuters and Stars and Stripes) also covered the event. In CNN's coverage, John's presence is called "noteworthy" and he is described as "the future face of the Democratic Party in the United States." Pburka (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this pretty much seals the deal. He was notable, he is now even more notable. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I had !voted delete on one of the prior ones because I was skeptical about whether WP:GNG realistically applied, especially given that meeting WP:BIO or meeting notability in the realm of politicians wasn't evident, and most of the sources, like the nom mentions, had issues issues with whether the subject's actually the subject of the coverage versus just incidental to wider story / WP:INHERITing. The NYDN article mentioned above, as well as this one (recent, clearly-the-subject-of-the-coverage) helps counter those concerns, as celebrity-style coverage, which seems to be increasingly dominant, would also place him in WP:ENT. It's still not clear'n'obvious, but so long as the article's actually improved with the newer sources and whatnot, it would seem much more reasonably so to me. --slakr^\ talk / 03:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the repeated AfD nominations show no indication what-so-ever that an AfD will ever succeed. This was totally obvious without this fourth nomination. Future nominators should consider the waste of time of a 5th, 6th, ... nomination. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article has been deleted three times. While I think the article should be kept, I don't think that this is a good argument in favour of keeping. Pburka (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the number of deletions it has had/AfD's it went through is not a convincing argument to keep an article per WP:NOTAGAIN. As for other arguments to avoid, one thing I previously hadn't brought up is how WP:INTHENEWS is also an argument to avoid. 20:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:INTHENEWS is not relevant. Schlossberg isn't just in the news this week: he's in the news every few months, each time for different events. Pburka (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that just because someone has stories on them in the news doesn't automatically make them notable. As for WP:EVENT, I could understand how one might deem him notable (be it praise or controversy) if it was being in the news weekly or perhaps even monthly. Every few months? Less likely. WP:NOTNEWS states even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Keep in mind, if not delete I'm fully open to this being redirected to Kennedy family (which most—but definitely not all—of his coverage pertains to). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that only the first AfD resulted in deletion. The second one was overturned in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 3 due to most reviewers believing the article was WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, though this time I've given an analysis on how it actually does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. He also fails all nine of the criteria listed at WP:ACADEMIC for his education and all four of the criteria listed at WP:AUTHOR for his writings.XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no upper limit on AfD nominations, mainly because WP:CONSENSUS can and does change over time on policies and guidelines (so do articles), and any AfD that closes "no consensus" is fair game for a renomination. We have things like the snowball clause more for stuff that's truly obvious (like an immediate renomination after a keep result or a string of keep results). --slakr^\ talk / 01:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Slakr. This also is certainly not a case of WP:SNOW. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what? It is clear that this will be a keep or no consensus. Why are we wasting time on this? Far too little time has passed for claims that consensus can change to even begin to apply. Also it is not the role of the nominator to argue each and every single point raised by those "voting". The usual role of the nominator is to stand back, see what happens and interject only if questioned or if the nomination reasons are misunderstood. Those voting keep fully understand the reasoning of the nominator. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yesterday, People published another article about John Schlossberg. They covered his visit to Japan (the same event the Daily News and Reuters covered above). Pburka (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of those three sources, Reuters is definitely the most reliable. Keep in mind though that the raw number of sources mentioning a subject is not by itself an indicator of notability per WP:MASK and WP:HITS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...none of which really apply here. Really, I cannot fathom why you are so hell bent on wanting to delete this article but oh well, each one has their pet peeves. But the point is that the number of reliable news sources is an indicator of notability. In theory one meets WP:GNG with two RS talking about a subject, without even the need of having the subject being the main topic of the article. Here we are way beyond that. Consensus in the discussion is clear so far. It basically snowing now. Perhaps we can bury the carcass with dignity? --cyclopia ^speak! 18:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hell bent" is a stretch. While there are multiple reliable sources mentioning him, many of them only do do briefly and/or aren't third-party. WP:SNOW doesn't quite apply here since "keep" arguments have included WP:WAX and WP:NOTAGAIN, which are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. What is also being overlooked is how he fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR are not relevant (he also fails WP:ATHLETE). He passes WP:GNG which is the basic test for notability. It also doesn't matter than some of the sources aren't independent or, or their coverage significant. As Cyclopia correctly points out, all that matters is that there is significant coverage in some reliable, independent sources. Pburka (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up WP:AUTHOR because of some previously asserting he was notable as a writer (which actually isn't what he is noted for), and WP:ACADEMIC to indicate that being a Yale student and being involved in school activities are not enough to be notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per past discussions on this very topic, and as a celebrity; being famous for being famous can make one notable. I think xxsnuggumsxx is badly misreading WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I haven't misread it. The issue is that although there are reliable sources discussing him, most only do so briefly and/or are not third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:30, 19 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!} 10:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Kaboudan[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. (Whose entry here makes me wonder whether there's not a tinge of promotionalism at work). Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:57, 12 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. The consensus is slimly in favor of deletion Guerillero | My Talk 03:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Coletto[edit]

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

Not a notable person JDDJS (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As CEO of Abacus, a major Canadian polling firm, he's been covered in Canadian media. I've found these two hits: dead link, and this interview in Threehundredeight.com (Canada's fivethirtynine.com). And there's others, albeit with less substantial coverage. But Abacus is legit and he does seem to be notable on his own terms, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet WP:N from media sources. - Ahunt (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF. Really far too young (33) and almost certainly WP:TOOSOON. The sources presented above aren't great for a WP:BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The Ottawa Life story is a deadlink, and it's the only thing listed that (if it has enough detail within it, something I can't judge just from the headline) could help pass WP:GNG. Are there more like that? If so, WP:PROF may be irrelevant, but if not then I don't see the evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to be WP:PROF, I'd agree. It's going to be whether he's been notably interviewed for his expertise as a leading Canadian pollster. That's what it'll hinge on, I suspect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I would argue that the 308.com blog interview is definitely an WP:RS in Canada, but there's not a lot for this Abacus founder individually, it's true. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 12 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. Three keep !votes and no delete !vote other than the nominator plus nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Stogran[edit]

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

Not a notable person JDDJS (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's rather simple to find significant coverage of this individual: this Ottawa Citizen blog story, this CBC News story and this profile in Ottawa Magazine are three examples. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable person that meets WP:BASIC per the sources posted above by User:Shawn in Montreal. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is lots of coverage in media sources and so the subject person seems to meet WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. JDDJS (talk) 03:49, 12 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. Two keep !votes and no delete !vote other than the nominator plus nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Smith (military officer)[edit]

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

Not a notable person JDDJS (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a rear admiral, he satisfies WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs expansion but the subject does meet WP:SOLDIER. - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has been singling out many of the articles created by JOttawa16. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn JDDJS (talk) 03:49, 12 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination does not provide a valid argument for deletion because it is suggesting merging rather than deletion. Feel free to start a merge discussion on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Children's Miracle Network Games Bundle[edit]

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

This information would likely be best merged into the articles, rather than have it's own page. While notable, I don't feel there is enough information for it to sustain it's own page. Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 19:28, 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 Un-Cut. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Gibbons[edit]

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

BLP without any reliable references. Laun chba ller 11:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless/until properly sourced. Each time I Google for her connection to something, the main result is this article, and the others are self-published, or otherwise useless. --Rob (talk) 20:20, 8 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable singer. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just noticed that Gibbons used to be a member of Un-Cut, which had a top forty hit. Therefore, this article should really be redirected.--Laun chba ller 19:51, 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. The matter of the article name is outside the scope of AFD and is for editors to decide by the normal editing process. Spinning Spark 19:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Hanzhou[edit]

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

Selected this category assuming architecture is included in "arts". This is one of several interrelated articles (On New River, North River Avenue, Jianghan Hall) with the only source being an encyclopedia article. I have been unable to find out anything about Wang Hanzhou in books, the web, etc. And, there's not an article in the Chinese wikipedia about this place. There were some articles added to the French wikipedia, but they were deleted. CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Baidu is not a reliable source, and can't find anything else. Noticed also that the url is strange; the proper URL for the same page is http://baike.baidu.com/view/9271966.htm so I don't know if it's a referer URL or serves some other dubious purpose.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should add I could find nothing on the Chinese WP for this but there was for On New River and it was deleted as a copyvio presumably from Baidu. That article looks like a crude, possibly machine, translation of the same source, and that could be true of all of them including this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Two~~ ~~Three~~ Six references from reliable sources added. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are not on the person though. The only biographical information neither establishes why he's notable – being a wood trader in the Qing dynasty is hardly justification for notability – nor is it reliable, the source being a blog of a trade body so not an academic or news source, and only a sentence of that. Everything else is on the building. It's possible there's enough for the notability of that but that would be another article and another discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was a "major" wood trader as noted by the Nanjing News (reference 2) and the Nanjing Cultural Heritage Protection and Utilisation Research Office (reference 3). Both of these are supervised by the Chinese government and therefore may be considered reliable sources for the purposes of establishing Wang's notability. As I have now clarified in the article, he was also a shensi, a term which had a special meaning during the Qing dynasty. I have also added some more information on the importance of the wood trade. It also transpires that Wang was a noted calligrapher. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep based upon Philg88's changes--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in addition to the references given by Philg88, I also found a Jiangsu People new article talking about the building. However, I do see that all the references are about the building not the person. Perhaps the article should be renamed accordingly? Rincewind42 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of the references relate to Wang himself, but you are correct, the majority refer to the building. That said, I think it would be better to keep the article where it is rather than moving it to something longwinded like Former residence of Wang Hanzhou. My guess is that interested readers are more likely to search for the name, in which case they will find both the man and his house as it stands. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon to have properties with names like that though, and some of them have WP articles. William C. Nell House, Edmund Gleason Farm, Joseph Andrews House, Capt. John C. Ainsworth House, Justus Ramsey Stone House (all from Category:Houses completed in 1851 where there are many more). It happens when a house is notable, perhaps architecturally or historically, but wasn't given a name of its own. So Wang Hanzhou house or Wang Hanzhou residence would be an acceptable and understandable title, and better represent the article content.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with name change I agree with John and Princewind regarding the name change - and the options that John provided are not long or cumbersome and keep Wang Hanzhou's name at the front of the article title for easy searching.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Hanzhou residence seems like a good choice. Philg88 ^♦talk 20:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Robertson[edit]

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

Subject is a local politician running for Congress. Subject HAS received considerable local press coverage, but as far as I have been able to tell, it is mostly in relation to her Congressional candidacy. I haven't been able to find much that would ring the notability bell. At present I believe the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. Any claim to serious notability seems based on her candidacy which POLITICIAN excludes as a notability granting criteria. Unless I missed something significant in the coverage (always a possibility) it seems to run afoul of WP:BLP1E. And frankly, as written this article just looks like a WP:COATRACK. A Prod was previously removed. Let me know if I'm missing something here. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said many times in similar discussions, any candidate in any election will always receive some press coverage, because local media have an obligation to grant equal time to candidates in elections within their coverage area. Our standards here, however, require a person to have a much more substantive claim to encyclopedic notability than the mere fact of putting their name on a ballot — while there are rare cases where a person can become notable enough for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate (the textbook example being the national media firestorm that engulfed Christine O'Donnell), in nearly all cases a candidate has to actually win the election, not just run in it, to become notable under our inclusion rules. There is quite simply no strong claim of notability here — so while she'll certainly be entitled to an article if she wins the seat, she isn't entitled to one just for being a candidate. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. However, I would actually disagree with the nominator when they says that "Subject HAS received considerable local press coverage". The coverage looks pretty routine to me and certainly less substantial than other candidates for the House who don't have articles (not that they should either). Tiller54 (talk) 15:52, 12 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. The only compelling argument here is made by User:Nfitz, who presents sources showing that this event meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Palestine International Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable underage tournament. Murry1975 (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No you are wrong. This tournament are notable and have gained attention in the Arab World and Pakistan so why do you want delete it. [3], [4], [5], [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uishaki (talk • contribs)

Keep: It is very notable in the Arab World and now stretching into Asia just for football purposes. But even in large Palestine communities across the world, this is big!!! Even bigger than Tournoi de France which was a friendly tournament but manages to keep it's place on Wiki due to the nations being involved...does it not?? Druryfire (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No that was a SENIOR internaional tournament, not an under-age tournament. So your comment " but manages to keep it's place on Wiki due to the nations being involved...does it not?" is wrong and very mis-representing of what gains notability. Murry1975 (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so covering every friendly tournament is allowed now is it? Pakistan have a senior team at this tournament, so please don't tell me it's age related. FACT is, it's a notable tournament and is even referenced, so you can't say it's not got coverage either!! This page Tournoi de France (1988) has nothing substantial about it, but stays. Utterly pointless page that somehow sticks around Druryfire (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of any significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite being not notable for the worldwide, it is still a notable tournament in Arabic World. I can't find any reason to remove it. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's easy enough to find a lot of detailed significant English-language media coverage about this tournament, and the events surrounding it. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. I haven't even searched for coverage in the languages of the participating teams. Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, on the aspect of notibilty, as there is some coverage, some on the non-free movement of players and officals, some actually mention the matches I would like clarity on some points.
- Is it an Olympic team tournament (u23), an u22 one (as some sources put it), senior one (as others do) or is it a mixed up one (I dont see FIFA recognising it for caps/goals, but I could have missed that one)?
- What is the name of the tournament? (I have read three different ones in the links)
- And if this is a non-FIFA event it still may be notable, but if the sources are not good, coherent or consistent on what information they contain, then the article does not meet a reason for keeping (as notablity is not clear, or rather the lack of clarity in coverage makes the event non-notable, "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"). Murry1975 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Snowball clause.--Yacatisma (talk) 04:54, 23 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 List of Spawn characters. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer (Image Comics)[edit]

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

A poor article with no third person sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 3 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, czar ♔ 15:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Spawn characters. No sources have been provided at all, much less independent sources. If someone wants to create a properly sourced article later, they will be able to find this version in the article history if they need it as a reference. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Spawn characters. Unsourced, with no claim to notability. (Very poorly written, too; the "Publication history" section consists entirely of fictitious information.)--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:13, 18 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 List of Spawn characters. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disciple (Image Comics)[edit]

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

Alongside the likes of Freak Force this article should be deleted it has no reliable third person sources to demonstrate its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 3 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, czar ♔ 15:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Spawn characters. No sources have been provided at all, much less independent sources. If someone wants to create a properly sourced article later, they will be able to find this version in the article history if they need it as a reference. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Spawn characters. Unsourced, no claim to notability, and written entirely from an in-universe perspective.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:04, 18 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 List of Spawn villains. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satan (Spawn)[edit]

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

Alongside the likes of Freak Force this article should be deleted it has no reliable third person sources to demonstrate its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tp List of Spawn villains as suggested on page.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Spawn villains. I don't think there's anything worth merging over: no sources, no out-of-universe information, and improper format which treats the stories of the comic as if they were real world events. Anything merged over would have to be so extensively rewritten that it wouldn't be worth the trouble.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Spawn villains. I'll second the opinion that there is nothing of value to be merged. BlisterD (talk) 16:56, 18 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 Bellator MMA: Season Ten#Bellator CXX. Described in greater detail at season article than in list. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bellator 120: Alvarez vs Chandler III[edit]

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

Wikipedia long ago decided that Bellator MMA events should all be on the same page as related to season. Udar55 (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Bellator events Fails WP:EVENT.Mdtemp (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bellator MMA: Season Ten — Poison Whiskey 21:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think should a stay its own page as it is there first pay-per view event and also as it has an event poster along with it JMichael22 (talk) 00:48, 18 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 Diante do Trono. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exaltado[edit]

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

Prod expired and it was requested to be restored. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 26 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 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diante do Trono - Indeed seems to fail NMUSIC. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:44, 7 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, czar ♔ 14:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diante do Trono. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:46, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jianghan Hall[edit]

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

I have been unable to find anything in English about this site. There was a source provided in Chinese, but it is difficult to determine the notability. Another source was provided but it's a travel blog type page.

There is some mention of the area having cultural relics, but there's nothing about how this particular site is notable. CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete not a reliable source and can't find anything else.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources found in English or Chinese to establish notability. Not found on Google Maps, OpenStreetMap or Baidu Maps. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:44, 15 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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Pipe Company[edit]

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

Restored prod, but I still dont see the notability. A routine pipe manufacturer, . If we were an industrial directory it would be an acceptable article, but we're an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak neutral, no objection to ~~either WP:SOFTDELETE or~~ a "no consensus" close allowing for a new AFD without waiting a long time. The dollar volume suggests that this company might be notable but unfortunately the article as written doesn't adequately demonstrate the company clearly meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Updated: As a restored prod, a soft-delete is not appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:07, 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 01:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to have enough independent sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:41, 22 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 05:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Routine press announcements and directory listings fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH and I am finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. I'm taking the unusual step of a third relist to invite the original creator of this article, @Blueena:, to comment. This user has created a number of similar articles. I'd like to hear from him or her what is significant about this group of companies. There may be something we're missing here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable company. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:08, 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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Holmes (diplomat)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. The sources merely confirm her role. Those wanting to keep should not just say "ambassadors of major countries are generally notable" but actually find sources to demonstrate WP:BASIC LibStar (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. [13],[14], [15], [16], [17]. I suspect the nominator will claim that these references don't count, because they're related to her role as ambassador, but such a claim would not be supported by policy. Pburka (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

none of these sources are about her as a person as correctly pointed out below and add no weight to notability. She is merely being a government spokesperson, like does a police spokesperson reporting in the media about crime make him notable? No. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article reporting on the words of a police spokesperson would be unlikely to include her name in the headline. Nor would a reporter interview a spokesperson; reporters tend to interview people who are influential in their own right. Nor would the article describe the spokesperson's career and experience, nor would the paper ask the spokesperson about her personal observations on the treatment of women in the host country. While not deep biographical explorations, these articles are sufficient to demonstrate notability. This is far more coverage than we have for many local politicians or professional athletes. Pburka (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You admit yourself these are not biographical explorations, if the interviews were on the life of Patricia Holmes eg how she became a diplomat then that would add to notability, the questions asked in these notability relate to what the Australian government's official position is on various issues relating to Argentina. If we replaced Holmes with another ambassador you'd get very similar answers, ie the official line. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what would make Holmes notable is an actual noted contribution to diplomacy like she led negotiations for a trade agreement or major trade deal, was significantly involved in a major diplomatic dispute, negotiated release of prisoners etc , merely having interviews saying how good the Australian economy is and the usual "we want to cooperate more with your country" doesn't cut it. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that you're confusing "importance" with "notability". Notability is not determined by great acts, but by significant coverage in reliable sources, a bar which this subject passes. Pburka (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's not the subject of this coverage, yes she is being interviewed but that is to determine the Australian Government position, not the life and career of Holmes. LibStar (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references suggested above contain virtually no material on Ms Holmes as a person: they're interviews focused on Australia's relationship with Argentina. Argentina-Australia relations is a notable topic and those references might be useful in expanding it, but Ms Holmes isn't likely to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry LibStar, but I'm going to once again say that ambassadors are notable by virtue of their position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closing admin will take this into account in the absence of you supplying no actual sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this article, while nominally about relations between the two countries, also contains non-trivial biographical information on Holmes. I can't read the Spanish language sources, but I think I have to give this one the benefit of the doubt. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES - ambassadors are typically though of as 'usually' notable, as with mayors of large cities. If the subject would pass WP:GNG, then they are notable, period. Since she was also a sub-cabinet foreign office official, and had been at the ambassador rank to several other countries, she easily passes our standards. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 21 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. Number 5 7 16:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Chamber of Commerce in Paraguay[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. looks an important organization but gets not one GHIT in Australia, seems like no one in Australia actually notices this organization "No results found for "Australian Chamber of Commerce in Paraguay " site:.au. " 6 of the 8 sources merely confirm the death of their former president. So these 6 sources are not even about the chamber itself LibStar (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that official statistics state that there is virtually no trade between Australia and Paraguay (only $A2.8 million in 2012-13) this organisation is highly unlikely to be notable. Paraguay is apparently Australia's 171st most important trade partner... Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On seeing this deletion request I assumed this would have a history because of New Australia, but according to the article itself this is a new organisation. As an inclusionist, I'm not recommending deletion, but it doesn't look like it has "runs on the board" to actually have notability, yet. Mark Hurd (talk) 10:20, 18 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 15:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel James[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Was a sparring partner for two champions but that is not enough for notability. Golden gloves is not notable in its own right.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and has no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:20, 12 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 deletion as a page created by a blocked editor in defiance of blocks. (Although it is not part of the reason for deletion, I will also mention that having a suburban railway station is by no means a guarantee of notability.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raninagar[edit]

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

WP:NOTE Suburb of a city of no noteable significance Amortias (T)(C) 11:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A distinctive population center, now a suburb of a lager city. So much so it has its own rail station.--Oakshade (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Baxter (footballer)[edit]

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

WP:NOTENo significant contribution to the sport or over a significant period of time Amortias (T)(C) 11:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no solid contribution is very true, was just adding articles for players on the list who didn't previously have articles AJW7X (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NAFL. Has played senior games in the VFL. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NAFL. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, VFL players from this era are typically considered notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 15 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. Feel free to recreate as a redirect to an appropriate target. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double Decker Express[edit]

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

This is a bus timetable, not an encyclopedia article. Plus, it's totally unreferenced. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTE no references and no reason for Wikipedia to become a transport information service Amortias (T)(C) 13:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any context indicating why this concept is notable, this is an indiscriminate list of information and not an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chennai - Bangalore AC Double Decker Express for which this topic is about, unless there are multiple named trains with the same "Double Decker Express" moniker. In that case redirect to a disamb page.--Oakshade (talk) 02:40, 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 speedy deleted by Yunshui (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per G3 (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaaandu[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur, unsourced, essay like text. --220 of ^Borg 10:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references not dictionary. The article reads more like an article for a news release and Wikipeida isnt written in the style of a newspaper Amortias (T)(C) 12:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition and essay. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR & OR. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR, DICDEF, Essay LadyofShalott 20:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A derogatory and abusive word in Hindi language. OR. Harsh (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete:: It is a deliberately created spam. The actual word is this. Plus the article contains too many foul and abusive words. I am reluctant to nominate it for speedy deletion. Tito☸Dutta 07:51, 19 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attock Group cricket team[edit]

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

Withdrawn As per last comment

WP:NOTE Played in two seasons, won one came last in the next and not played since. Single minor noteable event doesnt confer noteability. Amortias (T)(C) 10:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Two seasons in the highest domestic level in a country where cricket is arguably the most popular sport is hardly "single" or "minor". Also, the team's success rate doesn't make any difference to its notability. The notability guidelines established by the cricket WikiProject hold that all teams that have played first-class cricket qualify as notable under WP:GNG and WP:N – I don't see why this particular article should be an exemption from those guidelines. IgnorantArmies 13:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstandng of where they played quite happy to withdraw in this case. Amortias (T)(C) 14:13, 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Bartholomaeus[edit]

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

WP:NOTE 2 games and no goals, doesnt meet notability criteria. Amortias (T)(C) 10:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NAFL. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NAFL. Has played senior games in the VFL. (Note, Bartholomaeus played 4, not 2) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets with WP:NAFL]. AJW7X (talk) 12:49, 18 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) czar ♔ 17:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Barnes[edit]

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

WP:NOTE Another article on a Australian rules footballer with no major career or acheivement within the game Amortias (T)(C) 09:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NAFL. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NAFL. Has played senior games in the VFL. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets with WP:NAFL. AJW7X (talk) 12:49, 18 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) 01:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Angus[edit]

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

WP:NOTE short career only 3 games with 3 goals no significant acheivements or career to bring him to notability Amortias (T)(C) 09:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no argument here. just adding players who were listed as not having an article as on the to do listAJW7X (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NAFL.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep unless you want to throw out WP:NSPORTS & WP:NAFL. Played at top level. And online coverage of 80s/90s Australian news topics is sporadic at best, non-existent in most cases. The-Pope (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NAFL. Has played senior games in the VFL. (Note, Angus played 13, not 3) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 12 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) czar ♔ 17:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Amoore[edit]

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

WP:NOTE if his only distinction is never playing in a winning game. His short VFL career' almost makes the argument for deletion on its own Amortias (T)(C) 09:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NAFL. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NAFL. Has played senior games in the VFL. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets with criteria WP:NAFL. AJW7X (talk) 12:48, 18 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 15:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Collection (Linkin Park)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. All the information contained within this article is information based on their albums, not this release itself. — Status (talk · contribs) 09:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Linkin Park discography or delete due to lack of information on actual compilation. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The padding of this article is from other albums. Almost reads as a discography page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - none of the coverage listed in the article references this subject; only the individual albums. I could not find sources to establish that this meets WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 23:36, 18 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. Spinning Spark 02:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Hollins[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Strong Keep - Just because the article fails WP:NBASKETBALL doesn't mean the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. As said in WP:NSPORTS, "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Secondary sources seem to have been provided (asides from the self-referencing one).. although the legitimacy of Fox Sports and 'btpowerhouse.com' is very doubtable. If someone could find any other type of in depth coverage of the subject, I would be far from opposed to deleting it. I think the article has a potential of meeting the guidelines if work is put in. For example, I found this coverage after a quick google search - and yes, just based on the google search, there seems to be a plethora of interest in him, but he appears mostly on player lists of sites like Yahoo or TSN, with little more than a paragraph of description.. very iffy, but my opinion is that he meets notability. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 14:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I previously failed to note the significance of the subject winning the National Invention Tournament MVP, I misjudged what "NIT" stood for. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable player with no indication of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He won The NIT MVP award. That qualifies as notable under the college basketball notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete NIT MVP doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL. I was actually surprised at how few articles I could find about Hollins given that he plays in the Big Ten and is Lionel Hollins' kid. I just don't see the independent coverage (outside of NIT game reports, which don't count) to justify. He may land with a pro team next season that gains notability, but I don't see it right now. Rikster2 (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC) ETA - changing to Keep, the sources provided by User:Editorofthewiki have convinced me to change my !vote. Rikster2 (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NCOLLATH. May become notable but right now is WP:TOOSOON.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Winning the NIT MVP award doesn't meet NBASKETBALL nor NCOLLATH. Also fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Changing my !vote to keep. Sources have been added that are not merely game recaps, they're about the player. If keeping the article is not what the closing admin feels is the consensus, then I support userfying it in User:Editorofthewiki's space for now. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - how does winning the NIT MVP award not meet NCOLLATH? The first qualification states, "1. Have won a national award or established a major Division I (NCAA) record." The NIT MVP award stands for the National Invitation Tournament Most Valued Player Award. I fail to understand how that does not qualify under criteria 1 of WP:NCOLLATH? Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 01:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NCOLLATH also specifically says "such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport." In the case of basketball players, Template:Men's college basketball award navbox specifically (and intentionally) does not include the NIT MVP. The only tournament MVP that is on there in the NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player. Rikster2 (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NCOLLATH specifically says "such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards", not "restricted to those in Template:College Football Awards", so therefore I would assume that the NIT MVP qualifies under it due to it being a national award under criteria 1, unless NCOLLATH is altered to state "restricted to those in Template:College Football Awards" rather than "such as".. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to interpret it that way, but I will tell you that there is a reason the NIT MVP isn't on the template and doesn't have it's own article like the rest of the awards on there - it isn't that big a deal. The NIT is not the top-level tournament in college basketball. It is the tournament for the teams left over after the 68 top teams are selected for the NCAA Tournament. Rikster2 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this, this, this and this on Hollins, which I believe qualifies as significant coverage. May I add that Hollins is the all-time leader in career games played at Minnesota in addition to being NIT MVP? While this may sound a tad hypocritical because I just nominated the 2015 NCAA championship game for deletion, what's the point in deleting this when he's just going to sign a pro contract in the fall? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the third of those is a story that isn't a game report. We'd need more like that one. And we don't know where (or even if) he will play in the Fall. It may not be a league that gets enough coverage to meet WP:NBASKETBALL. If he plays in the top Spanish league, he'd be notable. In the top Icelandic league? Not so much. Rikster2 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. Ignore the game reports. Here is another source that focuses on Hollins. Here is one from his high school days. Together these sources prove that the article passes GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, those I buy. I changed my vote. Nice work. Rikster2 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User:Editorofthewiki/Austin Hollins. The article doesn't really have enough coverage in significant sources to qualify for notability. However, what's the point in deleting this when he's just going to sign a pro contract in the fall? WP:BALL doesn't affect things in userspace. It can sit there and incubate for a few months, and it can always be deleted it later if he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE before long. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have a problem with that at all. However, I must again point out that not all pro leagues bring the assumption of notability. It's actaully a pretty short list (too short IMO, but attempts to get consensus to expand it have stalled). Rikster2 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting basketball notability guidelines. Userfying is not a viable option unless some editor in good standing wants to accept the article. If so, an editor in good standing can accept in user space. Bear in mind that the original author is a blocked user. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will accept it in my userspace if it gets deleted. Which it shouldn't, because the sources I've added prove that it passes GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because he doesn't meat WP:NBASKETBALL, doesn't mean he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH, as I said above. Too many people are rashly assuming that's what it means. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 10:19, 15 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed during Euromaidan[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This was discussed and kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killed Euromaidan members, when there were 6 people on the list[18]. Now, there are sadly more than 100 deaths, and the list is one giant memorial for them. Understandable, but not the purpose of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTMEMORIAL is meant to avoid the proliferation of pseudo-articles on some beloved dead but unnotable relative and stuff like that. Here we are instead dealing with a thoroughly sourced list on a notable subject (while perhaps none of the dead is notable in their own right, the whole topic is). --cyclopia^speak! 13:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we have (and want) list of people dead during battle X, aircrash Y, terrorist attack Z? For many of these, the list of victims can easily be sourced, but still the consensus seems to have been not to have such separate lists, e.g.
- Other articles, like List of victims of the Our Lady of the Angels school fire, have not been challenged so far, but should be treated the same IMO. (Let's not get started on utterly useless and unsourced lists like List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2013).
- And of course, we don't even list the individual Casualties of the September 11 attacks, which are also easily sourceable. The topic of who exactly was killed is not a notable subject, the protests and the fact of the killings are of course very notable subjects but the list does nothing to increase our understanding of the events. Fram (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Uh, I see what you are trying to claim as evidence of previous consensus, but still I am not really convinced. Looks more like a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but actually you yourself show that such stuff does exist, even if you feel it should be challenged. The AfD linked also weren't exactly much participated and/or unanimously commented on the delete/merge side. So there is hardly evidence of binding consensus either way. Most of these discussions also ended up in a merge, at least in theory, which would require to preserve the information; given the size and detail of this list a merge would not be a reasonable option, so to WP:PRESERVE the information, we should keep it separate. That said, I disagree with assessments as "the list does nothing to increase our understanding". First of all, we should not delete articles on the basis that we find them WP:USELESS; information which does not increase my understanding can increase someone else's. For example the list reports the dates, nationalities and causes of death, which can be useful instead to dissect what was going on and/or to compare with similar events. Second, even if we don't feel it is useful, it is still notable and well sourced information, and as such there is no real reason to delete it -the NOTMEMORIAL argument in this case looks more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, since this is not a mere memorial bio of a loved one.--cyclopia^speak! 17:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - (Also, you noticed yourself that this article has been previously kept, so in this specific case it seems consensus is going against deletion). --cyclopia ^speak! 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I think that this is a great example of WP:Notmemorial. Also, the number of deaths will continue to grow, and we cannot list thousands of names in an article. I also feel that this is no different than the articles about list of deceased from Virginia Tech massacre and etc. This should be treated no differently. Staglit (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a pretty clear memorial. Although this article may not have been created by a grieving relative, it still serves no purpose but to memorialize the victims of a tragedy. If everyone on the list had an article, that would be different, but these are generally non-notable people. There are more appropriate places for this content; an encyclopedia is not a good fit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here. Well sourced article. Covering deaths after a highly notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing user - I see that this article has been nominated quite recently in late January with a Keep result. You find it at the talk page. I think this nomination is too soon. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article then was about 6 people killed at the protests. By now, it is a list of over 100 people killed there. With such a different scope, a new discussion is not unwarranted. I did note the original discussion and the "keep" at the start of my nomination. Fram (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but in this case a different scope means more inclusive and correct than the original keep discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not a different scope. It is the same scope, only the amount of people covered under this scope is now bigger. Why should this change anything? We're not made of paper; 6 people or 6000 makes no difference, in principle.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Titanic casualty list is notable because it has received an enormous amount of attention. This event doesn't reach that level of notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How would you measure the amount of attention? I do think that both Passengers of the RMS Titanic and people killed during Euromaidan received outstanding amounts of attention, much higher than average accident, with all members of the list receiving particular coverage on their own — NickK (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think Euromaidan has gotten the intense, sustained scrutiny of Titanic. Others at this level are the dead at the Alamo and the 300 at Thermopylae (though of course there were other Greeks who fought and died there). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking in terms of number of sources, I do believe it did. There were many initiatives of coverage of Euromaidan events and biographies of people killed there, including English-language ones. There are streets and squares named in their honour (see uk:Площа Героїв Майдану) and monuments erected in their memory (the first one is uk:Пам'ятник Небесній сотні (Буда)). There was an initiative to award the title of the Hero of Ukraine to all mentioned here. Unlike victims of various accidents, there are places named in their honour, thus the nature of coverage is closer to the one of the 300 of Thermopylae. If you think anything important is lacking, please provide what exactly is needed — NickK (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep This article is of a great memorial and educational value for any citizen of the world. Obaymar 21:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep This is not merely a memorial but it is well linked with the history of killings and other important and deciding events of Euromaidan. The article is also well sourced. Presently, there are monument and numerous streets and squares in Ukraine named after some of these people or after Heaven's Hundred, and so an increasing interest to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valizka (talk • contribs) 11:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all people in the list received a high level of coverage, including English-language sources (for example, the website http://nebesnasotnya.com.ua/en/ contains bios of all on this list), all of them have received more than trivial media coverage in Ukrainian and most of them in English (like this, this, this or this), and there was even media coverage in such languages as Chinese (like this website), Greek or Czech. As all members of this list have more than trivial media coverage like biographic articles for each of them, coverage in national and international media, there is no doubt all of this people are notable, although most are notable for only one event. According to WP:NLIST and WP:BIO1E list of such people is appropriate — NickK (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event, many sources. Five interwikies. NickSt (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote WP:NOTMEMORIAL: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." If this article meets notability requirements, then the notmemorial policy is not grounds for deletion. As the people killed during Euromaidan were the subject of intense media coverage and caused an intense political reaction, I would say notability requirements have been met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the fact that each individual death is low encyclopedic relevance. Including this memorial-article would be a bad precedent for other Wikipedia articles. Sietecolores (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the keep comments make the argument to delete this more eloquently than I ever could, e.g. "all people in the list received a high level of coverage, including English-language sources (for example, the website http://nebesnasotnya.com.ua/en/ contains bios of all on this list)"; that site is a pure memorial site, including the sorrow ribbon in the corner; furthermore, it is an Ukranian site which has translated its content in English, hardly evidence of notability outside Ukraine (which may in itself be sufficient, but the "there is English language coverage" gives a different impression than what it truly is), and finally and most importantly, this site is not a reliable source at all, so using it to strengthen a "keep" argument is rather baseless. It is good that such sources exist; bu that doesn't mean that they are a valid argument to have a Wikipedia article on the same subject. Fram (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited coverage in Chinese, Greek and Czech, with all these media located definitely outside Ukraine. Some other media provided detailed bios of all people killed during Euromaidan, for example, Gazeta Polska from Poland. Picking a random person from the list (Roman Senyk, a good example of WP:BIO1E, as he did nothing notable before Euromaidan), there were media reports on this person in Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland, detailed information), Mir i Politika (Russia, detailed information), ITN (UK, detailed information), Le Figaro (France), El Mundo (Spain), Zeit (Germany), PAP (Poland) RFI Romania, DW Serbia, Huffington Post Italy, Tut.BY (Belarus) i24 News (Israel), TVNoviny (Slovakia), Polskie Radio (Poland), Taipei Times (Taiwan), Jeune Nation (France), Belsat (Belarus), 20 minutes (Switzerland), 3:AM Magazine (France), Gulf Times (Qatar), ReallyRocketScience (USA), Affari Italiani (Italy) Europe1 (France), SME (Slovakia), Wiadomosci (Poland), Today (Italy), Topky (Slovakia), La proxima guerra (Italy), Ahram (Egypt), TM News (Italy), Aktualne.sk (Slovakia), Oggi Notizie (Italy), CoulLoud (Taiwan), La Voix de la Russie (Russia), Vesti (Serbia), Slaq (Armenia)... and I stopped somewhere at page 35 of Google results. To sum up: 18 countries (Armenia, Belarus, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, UK, USA), including 3 providing detailed information (Poland, Russia and UK). Of course, not all media reports were detailed: some were just a few sentences, but the coverage was definitely international, and for this particular person media of at least three countries provided detailed information that could be used as a source for an encyclopedic article — NickK (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this discussion with the intention of seeing if I could close it. After reading the discussion I can't see a consensus, but I do find myself very persuaded by what Fram is saying, so even though I don't think there's a consensus at the moment I do think we should delete the list. However, this comment is made after the 168-hour point so whoever does close it will need to decide whether or not to give it any weight.
I feel that many of the "keep" !voters above are conflating the notability of the event, and the coverage of the people, with a need to keep the list. I think this misses Fram's whole point, and a close reading of the debate leaves the nomination statement unrefuted.—S Marshall T/C 11:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that many of the "keep" !voters above are conflating the notability of the event, and the coverage of the people, with a need to keep the list. - It can be said that way, if you wish. But this is not an argument to delete the list. The nomination statement is basically a rehash of WP:UNENCYC with an (IMHO misguided) sprinkle of WP:NOTMEMORIAL to make it sound like it is grounded in policy. It isn't. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with Marshall's reasoning. Much of the political and media coverage I mentioned above was specifically about those killed during Euromaidan, not Euromaidan in general. Many sources have been given proving this, and the article itself lists some specific political reactions. I believe that the article could be cleaned up so its less of a list and more of an article about those killed, but this does not require deletion to do. To the contrary, deletion will only make this much more difficult as all of the information will have to be gathered from scratch. Also, Fram was making a WP:NOTMEMORIAL argument to justify deletion. Many of the arguments were about why the not-memorial policy is not a valid argument for deletion, so I feel that Fram's point has been addressed.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not memorial is a valid argument for deletion, but it may not be applicable here. However, some of the keeps disagree with you, like the most recent one: "Strongly keep This article is of a great memorial and educational value for any citizen of the world. Obaymar 21:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)" Fram (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that his article meets notability requirements, so notmemorial does not apply. While the specific keep vote you listed does not necessarily back my argument, several of the other keep votes did. Many users have listed sources establishing notability or have otherwise argued that his article does not violate notmemorial. Also, I feel that focusing on that specific vote does not do justice to the argument presented by the majority of those who have voted keep Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:35, 9 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, Sandstein 08:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes many people have died butWP:NOTMEMORIAL does seem to apply here, the event may be noteable but the deaths are not noteable on the same scale so may fail to meet WP:NOTE as well - both of these are positions for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how do you define that "deaths are not noteable"? — NickK (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are these deaths not notable? Several users have presented sources a large number of sources regarding those killed, and you can't just claim non-notability when there are still sourcing regarding the subject standing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, Well sourced & passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Obviously well sourced article following a notable international event that has ramifications for future world events. Regardless, it was already nominated for deletion, and the end result was KEEP. Someone must really not want this article around. § DDima 02:41, 20 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. The consensus appears to be in favor of deletion; better points were made by the individuals arguing for deletion. Guerillero | My Talk 03:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

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

No sources indicating that the flag is notable on its own. Martin Berka (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polish speaker running wild to delete anything that is anti-Maidan, anti-NATO? POV-pusher. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The flag is symbol of the new republic, and it is well known. The deletionist and Ukraine breakup denialist just attempts to change history, but it will not work. QuackDoctor (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Ukraine breakup denialist"....that's a new one --Львівське (говорити) 05:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obvious notability. I have seen it many times in electronic media. Just because it has not yet received coverage in books does not mean its not notable. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have seen it in the media yes but do they describe the flag or are they talking about the situation? Not everything that has or will ever exist gets a mention on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the media presented this flag and explained that millions of people are ready to die for it, while it may cause a nuclear conflict. I guess it makes it notable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's actually the specific flag that is likely to start a war, but the tension between Russians and Ukrainians and the action of outside agitators. Unless the specific flag has magic properties to incite belligerence, in which case, it certainly would be notable if that was reliably referenced. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man fallacy. Flags of course do not have magic properties, nor I stated that. If you don't believe this flag is notable you can easily test it. Just wave it in Kiev on Maydan, or try to burn it in the center of Novoazovsk, Krasnoarmeisk,... --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said You "guess" it makes it notable? Here on Wikipedia we use sources to establish notability, anyone can declare something to be notable, without thirs party sources to back it up however the claim is baseless. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpreted my position. I "guess" that it is notable because it is so much covered by the sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the sources describe or talk about the flag so how would you expand on the article here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search has thousands of hits. I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my position, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The flag has been used and shown in media but does not appear notable on it's own. Where is the in depth coverage describing the flag or it's meaning for example? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, not notable. QuackDR., stop making personal attacks please.--75 * 00:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Knowledgekid87. No assertion of own notability. Information can otherwise be expressed in the main article. § DDima 01:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep symbol of an organization and has far use per {Non-free logo}, and under sharealike I see no reason to delete it from the Commons.--Львівське (говорити) 02:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvivske: This is not about the file, but about the article, commons has a different deletion policy altogether that has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia AfD process. TheMesquito (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file page is here: File:Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg if this article is deleted then it will have no effect on the picture being used anywhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, then why is the flag not "notable" enough to be used on its corresponding article? The flag itself is notable in its own right for the flag raisings that have occured: [19] [20] [21] [22] --Львівське (говорити) 04:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources that is notable by itself and could be expressed in main article. TheMesquito (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand This article needs to be expanded to standard, yes, but I don't see that it isn't notable. On the contrary. 23 editor (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a saying, actions speak louder than words, can you show how it is notable rather than just saying it is? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my original vote thought this was for the image file in the commons, didn't realize there was an article on the flag. I think this may fall under being not notable enough to warrant an article on the flag itself, if the 4 URLs I posted above don't suffice. The flag should be sufficiently described on the DPR article, since there probably isn't much info to make an article with anyway. --Львівське (говорити) 05:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The subject is notable enough for a wikipedia article, though it should be expanded to explain the history and symbolism of the flag, using relevant sources. Vladimir (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? The ones mentioned above tell nothing about the flag other than it was raised. If you were to add to the article right now what would it be with sourced info that relates to the flag? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot see the sources, then you probably should stay away from voting. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's more important than Flag of the Bangsamoro Republik. 3bdulelah (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how with reliable sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Every flag used that has been seen by more than 10000 people is notable. Can this nonsense nomination be met with sanction to the nominator? ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No as no-one has been able to counter the argument made by the nominator. As for flags that have been seen by more than 10,000 people does the Flag of Sealand count? That has no article you notice and like yours is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blabla. The flag has been noted as evidenced by multiple articles and videos. Things that have been noted, are note-able. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm ultimately leaning towards a delete vote. I honestly believed that this would be more notable, but I have been unable to find articles about the flag itself, only its use in ongoing events. (Just to be thorough, I also ran the names of some recently adopted flags, such as the flags of Libya and South Sudan, through Google. Both searches brought up many reliable sources about the flags themselves). I would suggest a merge, but the article only states the coloring of the flag and the fact that it resembles the Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic flag. These facts are uncited and were likely derived from the author looking at the flag. I'm ultimately voting delete, but I'd be more than willing to change my vote if anyone can find any reliable sources on the flag or present a compelling argument for another outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this page is noteable enough for Wikipedia Dudel250 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donetsk People's Republic. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC).

Note - even if none of the text in the current article can be saved, there is citable information about where the flag has been used. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
This entity, this "republic", does not exist in the way that other countries exists. What we have is couple of hundred activists who have taken over some buildings--what existence there is as a subject is the material of newspapers, blogs, and tweets, not of an encyclopedia. It's what, a month old, and we already have a flag for which we need an article? What we have here, of course, is wiki-activism. Rich Farmbrough's suggestion is just fine: of course there is information we can cite, but let's not pretend that having such information means that we actually have something tangible, viable, and lasting. So merge it--and see how long we'll need that redirect. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I honestly don't even see a reason why this should be considered notable, as the there is barely even a republic out there, let alone a need for a flag article. I can see a reason for merging this if people see fit, but there is no need to have this article here as is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:27, 9 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, slakr^\ talk / 06:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTE yes the organisation that it is a symbol of may be noteable through news and media but the flag itself does not appear to be. being seen by large numbers (10,000) does not lead to it being noteable - for example the sections of scouting throughout the United Kingdowm have specific designs of flags for each section. These are seen by potentially hundreds of thousands of people each year at various events and copied in print and other media at these events, this does not confer notability onto the organisations flags and as such shouldnt confer notability onto this flag in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve per above, Not the most perfect article but not something worth deleting neither imho. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again nobody has been able to provide any sources showing how the flag is notable on it's own. To the people who want to improve the article: Why haven't you done so while this AfD is in process? Actions speak louder than words and the burdon lies with those who want to keep this article to provide the sources needed, otherwise it sounds like a WP:ILIKEIT argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve - especially now after the republic passed a vote and declared independence I think this is indeed notable. And we have flags of entities not even close to the same independence of this republic. And yes otherstuffexists but it would be wrong to delete this article just because of the fact that it is a hot topic right now. Tensions are high.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again no sources have been found to show it's stand alone notability nor has the article seen any improvement for almost 2 weeks now. The fact is that no sources prove this passes WP:N so your argument saying "I think it is" and "It would be wrong" both sound like WP:ILIKEIT as well as WP:OTHERSTUFF. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is 13th comment written by Knowledgekid87 here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not directed at you though, all of my comments are replies to other's comments. It just seems like a-lot because not a-lot of people are discussing here at the AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 20 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet (music genre)[edit]

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

Not a notable or real music genre. Only a phrase. Koala15 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Koala, all of the sources in the article site DJ Mustard describing his music as "ratchet" (and no one else). There is no explicit statement that "ratchet" is a real music genre, just a synthesis of sources mentioning the word in various contexts. 2Flows (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the two above. This is not a professionally recognized genre or subgenre that would be used to describe music in writing unless it had quotes around it. The subject fails WP:GNG. Also someone make sure to nominate Category:Ratchet (music genre) too. STATic message me! 19:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability 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". Dan56 (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dan56 has pretty much nailed the problem. I spent a lot of time looking for reliable and detailed coverage, but so far nothing. It might appear some day, but there is not sufficient coverage at this time for it to pass WP:NOTE.--SabreBD (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this [23], [24] and [25]; all describing it as a new sub-genre of rap. But nothing very significant. Also, I don't find anything peculiar about it that differentiates it from rap music. Maybe we can have it in the future if it becomes more prominent. Harsh (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. I've also nominated the category for deletion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DJ Mustard. I was working on a possible "Ratchet culture" article recently (which is a spinout from the colloquial use of "ratchet" that blew up with the Miley Cyrus twerking bullshit)—and I honestly don't know why the sheer amount of currently sourced RS aren't enough to show significant coverage here (and if it's not enough, then you'd love this fictional character discussion)—but, taking the spirit of WP:N into account, if those sources aren't good enough to show the notability of this (perhaps forced) "subgenre", at least we can salvage parts of the text for the DJ Mustard article. czar ♔ 23:00, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Thompson (politician)[edit]

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

Not a notable person. I could not find any Google news results for him. JDDJS (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subject, does not meet WP:N. The article title is misleading as the person described is not a politician but a minor party official. Article was created by an editor with a long history of promoting the people and ideas of one political party and is currently being considered for a topic ban for biased editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_to_ban_JOttawa16_from_political_articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the notability here. Media mentions that are found, are devoted to the person he replaced in the Harper administration, the more notable Dimitri Soudas. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion No notability. TFD (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion No notability. I did a Google search of his name and a number of articles about his resignation from the Conservative Party came up. I can see that one may argue that he is notable due to his position as the Executive Director of the Conservative Party in Canada, but I don't think this Simon Thompson is notable enough to meet the Wikipedia guidelines on notability. Respectfully delete. --DukeU (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being an officer inside a political party's internal organizational structure, even a senior officer, is not a role that grants an automatic presumption of notability — a person who holds such a role lives or dies on the volume of reliable source coverage that is available specifically about them, and not on any policy that all people who have held the role automatically get to have articles no matter how poorly sourced they are. I'd be willing to reconsider my conclusion if the sourcing could be significantly improved to properly demonstrate that Thompson himself has been the subject of significant RS coverage in his own right, but this version as written is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entire evidence of "notability" comes from article about person losing the job he took over. --Rob (talk) 05:50, 13 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laurentian consensus[edit]

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

Not a notable phrase. The book that it is from does not have its own article, so why should the phrase? JDDJS (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subject, does not meet WP:N, with one exception only cites primary refs. Article was created by an editor with a long history of promoting the people and ideas of one political party, while attacking other political parties and this article is an attempt to further that agenda, as per WP:SOAPBOX. The page creator is currently being considered for a topic ban for biased editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal_to_ban_JOttawa16_from_political_articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons already given. --Rob (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is neologism prevesneting the academic POV of the two authors of a book. It might be possible to transwikify a definition to the dictionary, but I would prefer a plain delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been tempted off-and-on to nominate this for deletion, but I satisfied myself with tagging it for notability. I do not believe this phrase is notable, and it's part of a campaign on the part of a biased editor to use Wikipedia as his own personal soapbox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There could be an article that could be written about the book, but this would not be it. --John (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This phrase has been discussed in many venues that are independent of the authors of the book that coined it. Steve Paikin did a whole episode of The Agenda on "The Laurentian Consensus", and it has appeared in op-eds by unaffiliated people. Googling the phrase yields many pages of results independent of the coiners from print media and major online outlets. The Laurentian Consensus book is also on a syllabus I found for a 4th year political science course at Wilfred Laurier, so the phrase has some currency in academia, as well. The GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" where "'[s]ignificant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". On this definition, the phrase / underlying concept is notable. A second issue that has been raised is that of soapboxing by the author of the article. However, each article stands on its own, and the assertion that the editor has "a long history of promoting the people and ideas of one political party, while attacking other political parties" is irrelevant to the deletion discussion for this article, even if it is true. An editor could have violated many Wikipedia guidelines and been banned in perpetuity, and this would still not be grounds for removing otherwise unobjectionable contributions they had previously made to the encyclopaedia. Basically, if a subject is notable then it is presumed to be worthy of an article. This article should be written objectively, in an NPOV fashion. If other editors do not believe that the article is written in a balanced fashion, then they should fix it. Deletion is a valid response only to articles that cannot even in theory be made NPOV. This one plainly can be, and arguably already is. Fun with aluminum (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- NPOV is acheived by fairly using reliable sources from all sides/perspectives, giving each fair weight (following what the sources say). That's very straightforward in articles about the Liberal Party of Canada or Politics of Canada or any neutrally named article. However, when you name the article after a term only one perspective uses, the only sources you'll find are those that use the bias term (therefore showing their bias). So, if the term is to be referenced, it should be in a larger article, with more perspectives represented. A few very famous terms, even though inherently bias, have so much widespread coverage, that we can actually cover them in an NPOV manner. I suggest we don't yet have enough sources to cover this in an NPOV manner (stories written in the Globe and NP by authors of the book don't help). I could be proven wrong if the article was improved beyond what I think it can be, but that hasn't happened. Finally, no we don't keep every article that "in theory" can be fixed. We routinely delete promotional and/or attack material of all sorts, even though it could be fixed one day, but isn't acceptable today. Failing to do so, just encourages more of the same. --Rob (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So we have dealt with the notability issue and we are now discussing perceived bias in the article: the soapboxing allegation, correct? This said, a couple of your comments on NPOV did not strike me as in line with the WP usage of that term. Absolutely anything can be covered in an NPOV fashion because POV/NPOV is an attribute of an article, not of the underlying subject matter or of the mental state / agenda of its authors. This is true even if the underlying subject is a "bias term" or something worse. WP has articles on anti-Semitic slanders promoted by the Nazis, but the articles are still NPOV, because the authors were careful to write them that way. Furthermore, our ability to cover something in a neutral manner does not depend on a certain number of critical sources being available. As long as there is reliable information about what Ibbotson (or Pol Pot or Genghis Khan!) said, we can say "Ibbotson argued..." and be NPOV, which is in fact what the article essentially already does. Since the article is about a notable subject that can be (in fact is, for the most part) written in a neutral way, it should be kept. This is not to say that the article as it stands is that great--would you like to work with me on improving it? If you want to satisfy yourself that this is a concept that serious, disinterested people are discussing, please check some of the sources I indicated above, particularly that episode of The Agenda. I found the book being discussed favourably from both the right (Halifax Chronicle Herald op-ed) and the left (babbble.ca); the concept is not so politically loaded as you might think. Fun with aluminum (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - For "the most part" the article is not written in a neutral matter at all. The article is writing about certain people/ideas. But, it exclusively presents negative views on those people/views. Now, there are ample sources that write about essentially the same topic, which can give neutral or positive views on the same people/ideas. But, none of those balancing sources use the term "Laurentian consensus", and therefore can't be used in this article. If you have some sources that use "Laurentian consensus" without supporting the author's perspective, then please provide them in the article, and we can evaluate them. I'm happy to be proven wrong. But, for now, I see this article as a clever tactic on the part of the author to write an article, that will always show his personal political perspective, to the exclusion of others. --Rob (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The author's motives are not relevant to the discussion about whether an article on "The Laurentian Consensus" belongs on Wikipedia. Let's set them aside for now. Since we have established notability, a need is presumed for an NPOV article about this subject. It is entirely possible to have an NPOV discussion of a highly loaded term: Late Capitalism and Partial-birth abortion are both loaded terms only used by opponents of their associated concepts, and so are only ever used in a negative light. And yet WP contains NPOV discussions of both: one in its own article, and one as a section of another article. To be NPOV, the article should not take a stand on whether the Laurentian Consensus concept is a good one. If the term is used by supporters as well as opponents, then we absolutely must indicate this. You seem to be saying that you did not find evidence of it being used by self-identified supporters. If this is the case, then describing neutrally what people who use the term say is correct, and a completely NPOV course of action. But in any event, I am going to edit some of the more tendentious parts of the article now to make the tone a bit more neutral / suitable for WP. Let me know what you think. Fun with aluminum (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        When I said uses were "negative", I meant negative towards those considered to be part of the "Laurentian consensus". Only those who oppose what they call the "Laurentian consensus" use the term. For example, no Liberal would use the term. Partial-birth abortion has massive coverage, and is referenced even by those who despise the existence of the term. I'm not absolutely opposed to ever writing an article about a bias term. I just ask for evidence that the term is referenced by more than those who share the bias. --Rob (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is an example of the term being referenced in a neutral way by an unbiased source, listing a number of popular policies as "Milestones of the Laurentian Consensus": http://theagenda.tvo.org/story/laurentian-consensus
      - We had an edit conflict on this page, so here is what I was writing while you were working on your last comment: Looking at the article again, I agree with you that some of it was written in a rather pointed, POV way. I have edited it so it is now quite neutral in tone and just describes the core ideas. Please give it a look with fresh eyes and let me know what you think. Right now, it is way too Ibbotson-centric (more like an article on The Big Shift than on the Laurentian Consensus). I want to put in some of the other references I found on the Laurentian Consensus, but don't want to put too much work in while it is under deletion threat. Hopefully you guys will agree with me that the article is OK now and agree to keep it. Fun with aluminum (talk) 05:43, 15 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wud[edit]

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

Non-notable rocker self-advertisement. Orange Mike | Talk 02:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's not the best written article, but the problems seem to be easily fixed, and he doesn't seem so obscure that it warrants deletion. Badger2424 (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Badger, and the 18 references to somewhat reliable sources (including Rolling Stone Middle East). Also, seems to be badly written, but not promotional (at least IMHO). Jinkinson talk to me 03:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable singer. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've changed the page a lot, and in my opinion it looks good enough to be saved. However, I might need a more experienced editor to take a look at it. Thanks! Badger2424 (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Always disturbing when a page is edited by an editor who has the same name as the subject of the article. As here. There's a lot of non-notable stuff reflected in the article. He played alongside a number of non-notable musicians, in non-notable bands, and worked at a non-notable studio, where he himself recorded and mixed non-notable music. And even this non-notable information is supported largely by refs of Wud himself asserting the information in interviews. Got it. But I don't see anything notable in accomplishments. Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Per my above comment. Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep All of the references I've used are very reliable and are all known and official websites such as TimeOut, The Rolling Stone, etc... I have also mentioned that he opened a huge concert in Abu Dhabi for one of the world's most notable bands (Guns N'Roses) and he also performed with Skunk Anansie. Jay Wud is a very notable artist and especially in the Middle East. Therefore I'm sorry to say that Epeefleche's request to delete this article is invalid. Maroun Halloun (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources amount to little more than gig guides and recycled press releases. No substantial coverage establishing notability. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is not even an assertion that he passes any part of WP:BAND, for example touring internationally; playing a gig here and there is what musicians do. Opening for a famous band is so common as to be run of the mill, and fame does not rub off so easily. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 21 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) 08:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Autonomous Corporation[edit]

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

Not found in any reliable sources, does not meet notability standards. Agyle (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Agyle. Badger2424 (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Agyle. I've seen this article previously. Today, for the Articles written by a single editor Wiki Fixup Project, I approached the article again with the intent to propose it for deletion--Agyle beat me to the punch. --LukasMatt (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A1 - "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It exists, and is covered in various webpages that discuss virtual currency, but not finding any coverage in reliable sources per Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A1. Harsh (talk)
Delete as neologism lacking sufficient references to establish notability. I note, though, that Agyle removed refs from the article which described the similar terms "Distributed Autonomous Corporations" and "Decentralized Autonomous Companies".Dialectric (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I removed three sources, none of which mentioned the article's topic, and two of which seemed non-reliable. The Bitcoin Magazine article mentioned one of the similar-sounding terms in one sentence, without describing it. Prior to my edits, an earlier version of the Wikipedia article said Digital Autonomous Corporation are "sometimes also referred to as Decentralized Autonomous Corporations or Distributed Autonomous Corporations (DACs)", but since no reliable sources mention Digital Autonomous Corporations, that's not verifiable. The other terms seem to be of dubious notability themselves. Agyle (talk) 23:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CyrusOne[edit]

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

On behalf of 2001:558:1418:0:0:5EFE:AA8:BFE9 (talk · contribs), no specific reason given. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep 25 data centres and counting, substantial coverage in the trade (financial and tech) press. Why delete? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Admittingly the article's somewhat lacking info but as always AFD isn't for cleanup purposes and as per Andy I see no valid reason to delete. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH: [26], [27], [28], [29]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 14 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.