< 31 October 2 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Seems to be doing a lot for the Chicago community, but the consensus is that he does not meet the notability guidelines. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Angel Diaz[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. The cited sources either don't mention Diaz or only name him as a member of a Chicago school council of some sort. This means he appears to fail WP:SIGCOV, and besides that the council in question is not itself notable so a redirect there is not an option. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best,

Cecilia Cervantes, |Chief of Staff| Chicago District Association of Student Councils|

Being the president of a high school-related body, or a member of another high school-related body, is not notable. This is an encyclopedia. Most of the references (no inline citations, by the way), are passing mentions, which might corroborate some information, but that's irrelevant since the person is not notable at all. Also, a large portion of the article is basically a copy-paste job of this source.
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. This AfD debate is, as observed below, a disaster. There are lots of SPAs participating (on both the delete and keep sides) with ridiculous arguments '"this is good for Bitcoin"). The sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability. However, several editors in good standing claim that such sources exist and I would suggest to them that they should add those as soon as possible. I close as no consensus, because there are also well-argued delete !votes from established editors. I have ignored all of the SPA !votes and the opinions not based in policy. If better sources are not added within a reasonable amount of time (say, 1 month), no prejudice to opening another AfD at that time. Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Antonopoulos[edit]

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

Subject is not notable outside the bit coin community. Has made one appearance in front of the Canadian senate (WP:ONEEVENT) and does not otherwise meet WP standards for notability. Most supporting statements/references will come from bit coin community "magazines" and "news" sites. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redpointist (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether a subject thinks their article exists does not affect notability criteria, nor should it. Testem (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May not affect notability, but WP:BIODEL could potentially apply here, if there happens to be no consensus. Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Whether the article subject is relatively unknown or non-public is also debatable, I suppose. For reference, the comment from the article subject expressing their desire to not have an article is here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Antonopoulos, giving numerous public speeches, and publishing numerous articles, cannot be considered a "non-public figure". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 64.25.217.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— Jflecool2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— Therealneptun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— 92.201.54.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
"I've never heard of Bitcoin" Have you been living under a rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.56.105.219 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of Constantine the Great, should we remove Castra_of_Pietroasele? Your personnal knowledge is not a valid argument. Subjectivity Jflecool2 (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jflecool2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment "I've never heard of Bitcoin, so I don't think this should be here." - this is not the proper forum to discuss the notability of bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 207.166.225.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
Giulioprisco I also did a quick Google search and did not find him covered by "top mainstream news sites." After four pages of blogs and bitcoin sites, I gave up. Could you please list some of the ones you found? Thanks. LaMona (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 42.79.213.185 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— 67.184.177.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— Dmodell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— Jmdugan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
Comment This is not the place to discuss the merits of wikipedia's notability criteria. Please try to consider the proposition on its merits Testem (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of wording: Antonopoulos was in one, exactly one, NYTimes article, in 2007. "...since at least 2007" makes it sound like there were other articles, but there were not. LaMona (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I agree with Wikipedia. I objected to the original idea to write an article about me, as I don't think I am "notable" in any sense of the word. All the article does is give trolls a public place to play out their petty battles and vandalism. I'd rather it was deleted." (emphasis mine)
This guy is a prominent figure in a marginal internet topic. This article could end up being a hazardous biography of a living person. I think until he gets some large fleshed out articles about him primarily, this article will be a hodgepodge of snippets of his work and casual vandalism.---Citing (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's notability criteria don't take into account the wishes of the subject, and nor should they. If the Queen of England expressed a wish to have her article deleted it too would be ignored. Testem (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen's opinion is irrelevant because she is a major public figure with thousands of published sources with her as the main topic. Antonopolous is a minor figure with very few (if any) reliable sources treating him as the main subject of interest. I prefer to be more careful about biographies of marginally important people.---Citing (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Sdietzer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
Comment As much as I agree with you, the proposition should be considered on its merit and we should avoid ad hominem arguments wherever possible. Testem (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 67.107.159.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
With that said, the article is in need of much improvement to ensure it is accurate (as it is autobiographical) and encyclopedic. Perhaps those who have joined today to defend the article might be so kind as to stick around and help edit it. If you are unsure about anything then you can post a draft to the talk page. The most useful thing is reliable sources, which experienced editors will be happy to reference when writing and citing content. Testem (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few places that are lacking citations and that presumably should be easy to correct if there truly is a wealth of material on him. LaMona (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Foucault Michel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
— 5.249.112.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— Fanees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - 92.25.139.20 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This deletion discussion is mentioned at [2]
— Noisavni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - 92.25.139.20 (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— XDexus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
— Jreighley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
No disk space is saved by deleting an article, nor would it matter if any were. Rather, the hope is to improve the quality of information available to people as well as protecting the subject from misinformation and libel by covering less prominent subjects as part of other articles where they can be better expressed in context and better curated, or not at all. It takes real time an effort to maintain a wikipedia article and it isn't generally possible to do a good job of it if there is not a good set of secondary sources available. Right now, even though the article is receiving more attention then will likely be paid to it even again, it still contains many obvious inaccuracies, and a lack of available source material means that its unlikely that they'll be fixed in any persistent way.--Gmaxwell (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, through the use of the multitude of secondary sources, I corrected the inaccuracy in the article stating that Andreas served on the board of the Bitcoin Foundation. He actually served as the head of the anti-povery committee. If there was a lack of secondary sources, this would not have been possible for me to do.Redpointist (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, this is good for bitcoin Countered (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out in other comments here, a person simply being quoted by an article doesn't mean that the article said anything substantive about the person in question, usually not. Go actually look at your search results. --Gmaxwell (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland?[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was written by Hola2014 (talk · contribs), a now-blocked sock of a site-banned user, with no significant contributions by others. This was apparently not noticed or discussed in the previous AfD. The deletion is necessary per WP:CSD#G5 in order to enforce the banning policy and so as to not to incentivize ban evasion. My speedy deletion of the article was undone by another administrator with the comment "I'll take responsibility for it". However, this statement does not change the fact that the speedy deletion criterion still applies because there are no significant contributions by non-banned users. The article should therefore still be deleted. In addition, the topic - a short-lived investment advertising campaign - isn't exactly what I'd call essential content for an encyclopedia; it received media coverage apparently mostly for its odd slogan, which makes the whole topic border on WP:NOTNEWS.  Sandstein  22:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is a piece by our Australian friend, Russavia. Carrite (talk) 23:06, 3 November 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. MBisanz talk 07:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NMS Artist on the Verge: 2014 Top 100[edit]

NMS Artist on the Verge: 2014 Top 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not my field, but how can a list of "artists on the verge of breaking out" or of anything in that state of development be appropriate encyclopedic content. Very few of them will yet be notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. Paul Johnson[edit]

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

Little known author who has written on Theosophical matters. A problem with trying to find reliable sources. None can be found. Does not appear to be notable. Goblin Face (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
  1. SMOLEY, R. "THE MASTERS REVEALED-BLAVATSKY AND THE MYTH OF THE GREAT WHITE LODGE-JOHNSON, KP." (1995): 102.
  2. Ferris, J. "K. Paul Johnson, The Masters Revealed: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge." INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY 11 (1996): 176-178.
  3. Constructing Tradition by Brill Academic Pub
  4. extensively mentioned by the The New York Review of Books
These reviews and mentions, paired with the ones already in the article, do show that Johnson passes notability guidelines. It's not the easiest search I performed, but I did find enough to justify notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several more articles on the Bio talk Page. If he is notable enough, then we need to be sure that his page doesn't get attacked again. Is that possible? He gets hit by Theosophists (followers of Blavatskyism) pretty often. JEMead (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll keep the page on my watch list and if it gets terribly bad, we can always do varying degrees of protection on the page that would keep IPs and/or very new users from editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 3 November 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. This is a bit complicated. At first glance, "keep" votes outnumber "delete" votes 8 to 4 (counting the IPs obvious intent to say "keep"), but the delete votes do present solid rationales (on average stronger than the keep votes), some which were addressed and others that were not. This forces me to close a qualified "No consensus". I would recommend shoring up the article's sourcing, as another AFD in 6 months is a real possibility. Dennis - 2¢ 14:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Energy-Safety and Energy-Economy (journal)[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources, only one minor (and also non-notable) award. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Zambelo, I'm glad to see that your recent topic ban at ANI has motivated you to go outside of your usual haunts. We can use more editors working on academic journals! --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Randykitty! Glad to see you back hard at work ensuring other people's misguided efforts to collaborate on a Worldwide Encyclopedia Project are managed to within your scrupulous guidelines - I'm just (pleasantly) surprised you haven't brought more conscientious editors along to force the issue this time - we can use productive editors who can stick to due process without pushing a POV. Zambelo; talk 17:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zambelo is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Question Karlhard, not even any of the above editors have dared argue that this meets no less than GNG. Could you perhaps be so kind to explain which sources discussing this journal in-depth comply with GNG? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randykitty, what do you think of the idea of AfD nominators confining themselves to their nomination statement and responding to questions asked?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a bad idea. An AfD is supposed to be a discussion, which could hardly be done if the nom would be barred from further participation. I have seen many an AfD where the discussion led to the nom withdrawing the nomination or to other participants changing their opinions. Not dicussing would be detrimental to the process and eventually to the project. --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that policy, which is entirely correct, is about verifiability, not notability, and requires only reliable sourcing, not reliable sourcing sufficiently substantial to establish notability under the GNG. We have never relied on the GNG for academic journals. Verifiability is met by Ulrich's. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if the claims in the article cannot be verified through reliable sources (not just one lady's "Editor of the month" bio) it doesn't meet notability. Origamiteⓣⓒ 22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: It would have been easy to close this keep, but the potential bias issues with inclusion and/or exclusion based on RSCI are signficant, and I would prefer to see more discussion on that point, as the answer to that question may have some signficant value as precedent. My apologies to participants irritated by the relist, but I really think this is a question worth getting right. Thanks for understanding. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Comment Glonal Impact Factor is on Jeffrey Beall's list of fake impact factors. It is not selective. Nor are any of the others, which strive to cover all Russian journals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but as far as I can see from the VAK website, the strict criteria consist of being peer-reviewed, having a website and editorial board, having an address, etc. There's nothing that indicates any stricter than that. Could you perhaps provide a link that shows there is more selectivity? --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had already seen that document, but unfortunately my Russian is not good enough to read it and it is not in a form acceptable by Google Translate. However, over 2000 journals from Russia alone does not strike me as very restrictive, comparing that with WoS or even (the much less selective) Scopus, which both cover the whole world. --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: We need to come to a conclusion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DrDevilFX (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my breakdown. DGG, Wikicology, Cirt, James500 and Rotten Regard think that the RSCI is enough. Karlhard asserts that it meets the GNG. 73.43.243.35, 184.188.97.130, and 66.56.43.231 say that the other journals are selective, which Randykitty directly disagrees with. Zambelo was trolling and wikistalking Randykitty. Randykitty and AioftheStorm say that the RSCI is not selective, and that no reliable sources mention this journal. I agree with Randykitty, and say that without sources, notability can't be established. Origamiteⓣⓒ 01:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It really is not enough to just say "meets Notability", you will also need to explain how it meets that. What sources do you consider sufficiently in-depth here? Strangely, I get just 35 Ghits (and only 13.9 million without the ""), but, in any case, numbers of Ghits are really no measure of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 2 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Men's Health and Gender[edit]

International Society for Men's Health and Gender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 2 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StaxRip[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Previous PROD removed with no improvements. Tassedethe (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of smartphones[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Comparison of smartphones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inclusion criteria is arbitrary and undocumented due to the increasing number of smartphone models produced yearly, "Article is an indiscriminate collection of items that can't ever aim for completeness", Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports ViperSnake151  Talk  18:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a difference this time, given that the narrower Comparison of Android devices recently got deleted. Additionally, that's not how WP:SNOW works (it basically has to have so many valid keep votes that there's not a snowball's chance in hell a Delete result would ensue). ViperSnake151  Talk  22:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know that's generally how SNOW works. But surely there has to be a way to avoid rehashing the same discussion from two months ago, and two years ago, and four years ago, which you now say has to be argued again on the basis of something else being deleted (WP:OTHERSTUFF). I don't want to do that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when is incompleteness or poor layout a reason to delete an article? Nothing in this comment addresses actual policy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not unreasonably general, and it is split into sections, by year. As for the other concerns, they might be reasons for improving the content, but how on Earth are they reasons for deleting the whole list? Are you saying that this topic inherently cannot satisfy WP:V, NOR, or NPOV? Actually, although not every single claim is referenced, I don't even see major concerns of this type in the current version. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pinkprint[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Pinkprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:NALBUMS failure. Note that this is not a WP:GNG problem, and meeting the general notability guideline is not a counterargument. Through general convention, we do not create articles about albums until they have three essential elements: a confirmed release date, a confirmed title,and a confirmed tracklist. The Pinkprint does not have the third element: there is no confirmed tracklist. Album articles released before that time invariably become edit-wars over leaked tracks and promotional puff-pieces. This article has been no exception to that rule. For those that will scream "But the article will just be created again in a few weeks", why yes, it probably will. But it won't consist solely of advertising when it does. —Kww(talk) 17:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's nothing about the publicity this album has received that places it in the category of "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects" that WP:NALBUMS treats as an exception. It's typical promotion of a typical work by a typical artist.—Kww(talk) 20:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your definitions of "very small number" and "exceptionally high profile" are pretty loose if you believe that argument was sufficient.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, your arguments for CRYSTAL, NOTADVERTISING, and NALBUMS are rather weak. The album has a confirmed release date, eliminating CRYSTAL. The article may currently have some puffery but it's far from an advertisement. NALBUMS states, "Unreleased material ... is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources" (23 sources, most of which I would consider reliable and more than passing mentions, are cited in the article, not to mention the 27 million Google results I previously mentioned). –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other cases I would have understand the issue but this album is coming out in a month and two weeks and this page is actually very relevant and necessary now. The album cover will be released this Monday, other things related will most likely come short after it. No reason to delete the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thijn23 (talk • contribs) 0:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only in the sense that compliance with guidelines is never required: "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label" is explicit. Since no reasonable reading of the guideline would permit this article to exist, Chace's argument is completely devoid of merit.—Kww(talk) 03:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet you excluded the word "generally" at the beginning of that quote. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the exception to "generally" is defined, and there's no reason to believe that the exception applies. A well-orchestrated publicity campaign doesn't qualify an album for being one of "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects", and your second argument is also inapplicable: "Unreleased material ... is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources" does not say "if there is significant independent coverage, no other part of the guideline need be considered". No one is arguing that there isn't significant independent coverage in reliable sources: that's a restatement of WP:GNG, which is not the issue here.—Kww(talk) 22:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it passes the GNG with significant independent coverage in reliable sources, then I really don't see the point in deleting it just because it lacks a track list. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your interpretation of "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label" is? Like Chase, you are arguing that it meets the GNG, which is not at issue.—Kww(talk) 04:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have 2/3 criteria generally required at this point, I think you're nitpicking at an article, when there are others that I'm sure require more attention for deletion than an album coming out in a bit more than one months time. The articles features a wide variety of real-world context beyond a first-person resource, and I simply don't see the need in deleting and/or redirecting the article. I believe other articles that exist should have attention brought to them, instead of being ignored as they always are. livelikemusic my talk page! 04:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it doesn't. It just has the usual gang of incompetents adding fake tracklists based on forum rumors before an official one is announced. That kind of thing is the reason our guideline against having this kind of article exists.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 7 November 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. MBisanz talk 07:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mooney[edit]

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

This person does not seem to be remarkable on the Internet. I cannot locate any sources that refer to this person, and out of the 2 references, 1 is a dead link(dead link was fixed), and another requires a subscription to access. Thus, there are no sources to support any information found in this article, and this article should be considered for deletion. (Correction: There is one source, but I am not sure if it is sufficient.) Tony Tan98 · talk 16:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 1 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TwentyThirtyThree[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD with the reason "Non-notable." Euryalus (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:57, 1 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CoolJunkie.com[edit]

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

Procedural nomination,. Originally a procedural deletion with the reason "Non-notable local (and now defunct) website fails WP:WEB" but ineligible as has been listed and contested previously. Views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:57, 1 November 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. MBisanz talk 07:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nayeebrahmin(Vaidya brahmin)[edit]

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

I can't find these Brahmins in Brahmin, but with the vagaries of transliteration, they could be. Are they notable? There is one reference given, which is as hard to read as this. (Not being Indian doesn't help me there...) I can't decide if it's a WP:RS or not. Bits of it look rather similar to the referenced site, but as it's in rather small type and long words, I'll leave that to others to decide. Peridon (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that the article is referenced to http://vaidyanayeebrahmin.hpage.com/ and that site is referenced to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brahmin_nayee which looks a bit circular to me. Peridon (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honda-Vodafone Stadium[edit]

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

Notability. School sportsgrounds are well below the threshold of notability for inclusion. Additionally no stadium by either of these names in the Mornington area appears in web searches. Falcadore (talk) 14:18, 1 November 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. MBisanz talk 07:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Lynch Lamar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 14:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A stub is an article quality rating, stub articles are still subject to meeting notability requirements in order to be retained.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 06:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristy Coors Beasley[edit]

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

All sources are primary, the few non-primary sources show no discussion of subject. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:05, 1 November 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 Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Golding[edit]

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

Non-notable Australian suffragist, only one source (the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which covers her in a shared entry with her sister, and mostly covering her sister in that entry, giving Isabella a passing mention), and only one other I could find was from the Australian Women's Register, which exclusively used the aforementioned ADB as a source, only restating info found in the ADB. Notability requires multiple sources, and since the Australian Women's Register only rephrased the ADB, it should be treated as the same source.

Also, based on WP:ANYBIO, she would not be notable, as being "the first female inspector of public schools" is not very notable, and the ADB says she was the "first female inspector" (this is under the Early Closing Act of 1899, which moderately expanded the scope of inspectors to cover shops [and no mention of schools]), I would say that is a blatant lie, since Augusta Zadow was the first female government inspector in Australia. Since Isabella Golding's "claim to fame", so to speak, would be being the first female inspector, the fact that she is not the first female inspector pretty much makes her non-notable (as per WP:ANYBIO, because her well-known or significant honor [that of being the first female inspector] or alternately, her widely-recognized [no sources other than the ADB recognize her, and the ADB only recognizes her in conjunction with her sister] contribution, doesn't actually exist). Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife, there's a reason the Draft process exists, so that users can demonstrate notability before being put up for deletion in the Article space. The creating user should have done so, but now that it's done I suppose the article will either be improved (demonstrating notability) or deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article does demonstrate notability, and it would have been far better if any concerns had been raised with the editor rather than making their first interaction on Wikipedia be a deletion discussion on someone who should be pretty clearly notable. This would have allowed them to fix any issues and not be scared off first. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the ADB, she was just "an inspector". Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I misread the type of inspector - she was in industrial relations, not education: nonetheless, holding a, for the times, significant public service role a full eight years before women's suffrage was, and is, a big deal, combined with her other positions in politics and public life. It's not hard to see why the ADB found her to be notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Augusta Zadow also held the significant public service role of inspector as well, she was also a woman, and did it before Isabella Golding. The ADB source also states the entry is a joint entry. The entry also covers mostly Annie Golding, with Isabella getting passing mentions. Annie Golding was the main leader of the organization, and Isabella Golding was "the first female inspector under the Early Closing Act 1899", and taught in public schools. The ADB also states that it "seems likely" that most of Annie Golding's knowledge came from Isabella, which seems like an inference, and therefore not supported by a secondary source. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Her obituary in the Sydney Morning Herald provides some more claims to notability, including stating she had much to do with the granting of suffrage in NSW. Her obituary in the Catholic Worker adds her prominent role in the anti-conscription campaign in WWI and her role in the founding of the RSPCA. This article and this article give some context for why her inspector role was significant. The Sydney Morning Herald reported on her retirement and provides some more information about her roles in the suffrage organisations. This is one of many articles reporting her anti-conscription speeches in great detail. Trove has nearly ten thousand hits for "Belle Golding", extensively documenting her life and activities. The coverage about her specifically is actually so significant I think you could write a featured article about her without too much strain. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: Notable enough coverage for me, so withdraw. Never heard of "Trove" before, will check it out. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 06:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domnall mac Brian Ó hÚigínn[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable per WRITER. Tiny stub of an article which appears to exist solely due to connection to other bardic families. Not even a cursory indication of anything, much less anything notable, which he wrote, or did. Quis separabit? 13:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 06:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Rai Gupta[edit]

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

Article is not supported by any reliable independent sources that confirm the notability of the subject. Appears to be a self-written vanispam article to promote the interests of the subject. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ADK Assault Rifle[edit]

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

As for now I found absolutely no proof of the weapon in question even existing in real world (not only in Red Alert 3 videogame).
Weird technical specs are also listed, non consistent with how 7,62x54R round usually behave (for example - muzzle velocity is stated to be as high as 1200 m/sec, while it is only 865m/sec even in Mosin-Nagant M91/30 with its barrel lenght of 730mm --RussianTrooper (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This AfD nomination was malformed. I've formatted it properly and am relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deor (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Wichita King Air crash[edit]

2014 Wichita King Air crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable WP:NOTNEWS - TheChampionMan1234 09:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why is it no news? It has been reported in the news. ( The page is also created in French) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here is the AfD in question. The accident occurred in October 2013, the article was made and the AfD was started in August 2014‎, and was concluded on September 15. Here is the article prior to becoming a redirect. In that case, the reason the AfD was brought forth was because of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, and WP:AIRCRASH. In the end, both sides used WP:AIRCRASH, which recommends that it not be cited at AfD. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was also cited as a counter to other articles to delete if that article was deleted and WP:EVENT was cited under the opinion that the article failed to meet it. So, the possible issues would be WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, and WP:EVENT. We have heard about each, except for WP:EVENT. As for the articles themselves, that article only had three sentences with a single citation when compared to the current article having what appears to be nine sentences and sixteen citations. Furthermore, the other article was created several months after the accident, while we are still within a week of the accident at this point. So, I do see some differences between the two cases. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:02, 2 November 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 (G5). Non-admin closure. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DCM Sir (Director)[edit]

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

Delete as of now it doesn't appear that this person passes WP:CREATIVE Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A New Life with Maurice 13[edit]

A New Life with Maurice 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this while looking at an article for one of the director's other films and I noticed that this article has the same issues as Praison's Last Chance. The sources are all either WP:PRIMARY, routine database entries, or links to places that host the film. I wish the directors well, but right now this is just WP:TOOSOON for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 1 November 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) Good afternoon (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Magic[edit]

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

Non-notable cultural phenomenon Keilana|Parlez ici 03:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:19, 25 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:10, 1 November 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 Christopher Memminger. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 13:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Nullification[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meath WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Even using the looser criteria for non-contemporary books, I cannot find any indication that the 28 page pamphlet has been widely cited or written about nor that it has a significant place in the history of literature. In looking for significant coverage of the book in both gbooks and gscholars, 99% of the hits are simple trivial mentions of usually one or two sentences. FyzixFighter (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be widely written about. The criteria speak of the fame the book enjoyed in the past. It would be famous if it was widely read or talked about. We have multiple sources claiming that the book "attracted much attention" etc from its publication onwards. That clearly satisfies the criteria. There was much less publishing going on in the 1830s than there is today, so it is unreasonable to expect as much of this discussion to be committed to print as would be today. James500 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree good idea, redirect it EoRdE6 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect From the sources I have found, the book is only notable in the historical/political context of Christopher Memminger. The book is adequately covered in his article. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It is notable in the context of the doctrine of nullification. (2) It is manifestly not adequately covered in Memminger's article, which only says that he wrote it and says nothing about its effect. James500 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Newspapers.com and there were only a few newspaper articles all focusing on Christopher Memminger and providing at best a one-sentence description of the book. I was hoping to find something of substance, but I couldn't. I am One of Many (talk) 15:12, 31 October 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 01:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). The first keep !vote does not provide guideline or policy based rationale for retention. After two relistings, closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum control speeds[edit]

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

Per WP:OR and WP:NOTMANUAL. To see what I mean, read what was removed from the article here[12] when the PROD was taken down. ...William 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 16 October 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:56, 25 October 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 01:40, 1 November 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. I close it because the nomination was formally withdrawn, and also the keep arguments dominate.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University and College Crowdfunding Platforms[edit]

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

Runs into problems with WP:LINKFARM and WP:GNG as well as EL/list standards. None of the items on the list have a Wikipedia article (other than the universities themselves, of course) or even a source. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:42, 25 October 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 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One possible solution is simply a name change so that all entries are notable: "University and College Crowdfunding Platforms" --> "Universities and colleges with crowdfunding websites" --I am One of Many (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we determine the list items aren't individually notable as crowdfunding platforms then what's to prevent any article of format "universities and colleges with ___" (e.g. buildings built in 1951, movie theaters, Taco Bells, Moodle servers, freshman-only dormatories...) Moodle and movie theaters are notable subjects, but if specific instances at specific colleges aren't, it just seems inappropriate to have a supposedly encyclopedic list of them. But, again, that doesn't mean there couldn't be an article about university crowdfunding websites that uses some of them as examples. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely see your point. Perhaps the best approach would be to first turn this article into a stub about the topic. If someone later wanted to add some sort of table, the history would still be there to help that project out. Maybe I'll take a few minutes and do that and see what you think? --I am One of Many (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup I made it into a stub that could be expanded. Probably a name change to "University and College Crowdfunding" would be a good idea. What do you think? I am One of Many (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have completely re-worked the article, but it definitely isn't perfect. I agree with the name change, I just don't know how to facilitate that change. laurenwake 12:44, 7 November 2014 (PST)
  • Comment Yup, it is completely different and it would never have happened if you hadn't nominated it for deletion! --I am One of Many (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. No arguments put forward for deletion. No contributors other than the nominator favour deletion. Michig (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Institute of Management[edit]

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

How is it that in eight years nobody has managed to turn this into a decent article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:21, 25 October 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 01:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was responding to the comment by the nominator. The "reasons" for deletion are obvious, material copied from the institute's web sites and literature, by editors that appear to be employees of the institute. I changed the above vote to a comment. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 1 November 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 Hillcrest, KwaZulu-Natal#Schools. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest Primary School[edit]

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

Primary schools are not normally notable as per WP:OUTCOMES. Unreferenced with no indication of notability. Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kudpung: I would have redirected it but the chances are high that the page creator would simply undo the redirect. Gbawden (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden:. In my experience, having processed many hundreds of school AfDs and redirects, the likelihood is rare. If it does happen, I full protect the redirect, which at the same time also prevents a new article with the same name being created. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Morrison "The Bard of Mallusk"[edit]

William Morrison "The Bard of Mallusk" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable poet. A local hero, to be sure, but notability does not seem to extend beyond the Mallusk area where he lived. No indications that his poems were ever published except by the people of Mallusk as part of a memorial. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 October 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, JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 24 October 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 01:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Walker[edit]

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

Non notable actor with small appearance in movies. Ireneshih (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actor has had several notable roles in several television series. RowanWood839 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 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, JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 24 October 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 01:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Crumbs[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable sources for this band, though it may be due to the commonality of their name with leftover food. However, article itself does not give indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. The Article certainly needs fixing up, but I did find an Miami New Times article in 2014, Broward/Palm Beach New Times in 2011, coverage in CMJ New Music Report way back in 1998, an article in Punk Magazine here in 2001, Record Review in Razorcake. Some coverage in Summit Daily, a Colorado publication. There name does make it hard to find references though. JTdale Talk 05:33, 25 October 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 01:37, 1 November 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. Opinion is slightly in favour of keeping, and moreso among the later contributions after some of the article issues had been dealt with. Michig (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald Auto Malls[edit]

Fitzgerald Auto Malls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can a car dealership be notable by fact of being a car dealership? I mean omitting possible qualities as being the largest dealership (employees, volume of sales), a newsworthy innovation, or notoriety (e.g., a dealership whose owner was notorious for hiring teenage boys who responsibilities included unsavory activities). I honestly don't know.

I came across this article, originally written 19 September, while working thru the New Pages backlog. By inclination, I'm an inclusionist (although I'm not interested in marking reviewed articles on sports people or record albums; if you don't like it, help drain the backlog yourself), but I'm interested in keeping obvious vanity entries & advertising. And here I honestly don't know the answer.

In this case, let me lay out the reasons to keep & the reasons to delete:

To keep --
To delete --

As an additional point, even if I reviewed this article, I know this article will eventually find its way to AfD. So we might as decide this issue now. -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Keep I am the user who put the article up in the first place and here's why I believe the article should NOT be deleted. Fitzgerald Auto Malls employs well over 1,000 persons and is one of the largest employers in Montgomery County, Maryland as well as the state of Maryland. Fitzgerald Auto Malls comprises over 20 locations in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Florida and therefore has some national recognition. Also, as you mentioned in your reasons "to keep" this article, Fitzgerald Auto Malls played an integral role in passing legislation that saved numerous dealerships and thousands of jobs across the U.S. following the auto industry crisis of 2008-2010. Fitzgerald Auto Malls plays a key role in supporting child car safety in Maryland through its monthly Car Seat inspection events, in which trained technicians install car seats for families in need of assistance. I understand that this article may read to some like an advertisement and I would be happy to partake in the rewriting process to make it more neutral. However, the fact that I put up a lackluster edit summary is listed as a reason "to delete" is completely unfair and does not take into account the validity or importance of the article. If I had to resubmit the article my edit summary would read as follows: "I am adding a legitimate article for Fitzgerald Auto Malls: one of the largest employers in Maryland, a leader in child safety and recycling, and a key player in the U.S. Auto Crisis of 2008-2010." Please take my reasoning into consideration before deleting this article. I would be happy to discuss this further and accept anyone's input as to how to improve this page so it may avoid deletion. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC) It is also worth mentioning that Fitzgerald Auto Malls is the only car dealer group in North America to achieve ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications. HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC) I recently made several significant edits to the Fitzgerald Auto Malls article and added a few new sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13jlsilver (talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [I edited your text, above, as it put a bolded !vote next to my user name, possibly giving the impression that I had changed my !vote. Each person should really !vote just once -- so just one bolded item.] Unfortunately, the reference to Reuters [17] might sound promising, but it's just a press release. Indeed, the reference includes the text "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." If you could find an article that Reuters wrote, where it talks about the company in depth, that would be different. Hopefully more people will comment on this deletion request; it's quite possible they'll disagree with me. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for responding, I did not realize that this source was a press release. I am still working on finding more reliable, nationally published sources and will continue to update the Fitzgerald Auto Malls page as I am able to locate them. I agree that one vote per person makes sense and I apologize for making it appear as though you had changed your vote. I do hope that more people weigh in on this page so that I may continue to improve it and avoid deletion. -- HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just able to replace the Reuters press release with two other sources I found. Still in the process of improving the page and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 13:41, 21 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:JTdale - Thanks so much for providing these references, I really appreciate it. A few of them have already been added to the article, but I added one you provided to bolster the Wiki page's intro section. Great that you fond a copy of the book, I had been looking for that! Thanks again! Any more help you can provide would be awesome. Best, HIST406-13jlsilver (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 06:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Calvo-Dahlborg[edit]

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

Insufficient claims of notability to meet WP:PROF RadioFan (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney University[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, does not meet notability guidelines, lacks references, search for sufficient references found only primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only looked for a few seconds but http://www.cnbc.com/id/100619276# and http://www.trainingmag.com/content/inside-disney-u.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we do have an article about McDonald's Hamburger University. When an entire book has been published by a reputable company about Disney University, as well as significant coverage in several other books, and articles in management journals and newspapers going back decades, then the topic is notable, even if you don't like it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reynolds (manager/lawyer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Robert Reynolds (manager/lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Notability Zacaparum (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is mere self-promotion. This a a lawyer who represents famous people as a lawyer and a manager. He is not himself notable. He even goes so far as to list the successful records of his clients, as if that makes HIM notable. So what? Most famous people (including rock stars) have lawyers; that doesn't mean every such lawyer gets his own Wikipedia article.

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though I totally agree this should be deleted, It think it's worth mentioning that it's not any one in particular's responsibility to prove notability of a given article. It's a community effort.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:32, 5 November 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. I will userfy the article as requested by I am One of Many. Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Madison McKinley Garton[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Madison McKinley Garton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Most of the references in the article fail WP:RS and the others do not establish notability. A similar article about the same subject was deleted in July (article was previously titled "Madison McKinley") and there does not seem to be any significant new reason in the article or in the WP:RS that indicates more notability than before. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_McKinley. A speedy delete G4 was declined. Jersey92 (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The Bachelor episode was true in the last AfD as well but being on the show and walking off does not establish notability and the obvious consensus was to Delete. WP:TOOSOON is a reason to Delete, not to Keep. Please also see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason we have AfD is because we have to make interpretations of policy. I said that this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I believe she is over the hump. What clearly pushes her notability over the top is the extra added by The Bachelor episode, which received broad coverage. Hence, she is notable. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What changed visavis this subject since the last AfD just a few months ago? --Jersey92 (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, nothing significant has changed. However, I did not participate in the first AfD and if I had, I would have made a similar argument and the discussion likely would have closed as no consensus (minus the SPAs). --I am One of Many (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Speedy Delete has stricter requirements than AfD. Admin did not feel a G4 was warranted. Acceptance at AfC does not mean that there is consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    More