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

The result was speedy delete. A7 event Secret ^account 05:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Midlothian Panther Baseball[edit]

1982 Midlothian Panther Baseball (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 don't think we generally have articles on high-school sports teams, let alone their individual seasons. I'd reconsider if there were some offline sources, but I saw nothing of note online. --Jakob (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete page, possibly merge some of the information on the team to the Midlothian High School, Texas page. Spanneraol (talk) 01:39, 13 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 decker^talk 02:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arekan dialect[edit]

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

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

No indication that this actually exists, outside of the blogs used as a source. I've been unable to find anything in actual academic literature.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ok, outside the two blogs cited, there is nothing in books, online, or academic paper I could find that substantiate this dialect exists. At best this is original work? I suspect this dialect is not yet accepted as such in linguistic circles. EBY (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; Agree with Crisco1492. At best, this might be able to be covered in an article on Javanese dialects but not an article on each dialect. HalfGig talk 23:23, 19 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 merge to National Report. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 15:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Horner[edit]

Paul Horner (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 removed about half of the article (which was either unsourced or irrelevant), but the rest of the article will be nearly impossible to source (as the only references are interviews with Horner) - the rest are highly suspect as being hoaxes themselves. Horner may be notable (if he even exists) but unless valid references can be found the page should be deleted for lack of notability. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to National Report, which already has a paragraph about his work for the website. Casting aside the WP:NEWSPRIMARY interviews, the sources given here are more about the National Report site than Horner specifically. --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The amount of times the man shows up on Google searches in illegitimate sources is reason enough for this page to stay alive; when his name is searched, a valid response should be up. I will admit my inexperience at publishing Wikipedia articles. However, this deserves to be a stand-alone article, edited and improved by those with more experience than I, and not deleted, for the sake of accurately informing people and preventing hoaxes like this from wreaking further havoc on the media.— Speculations319 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Merge or Delete - Illegitimate sources do not lend notability. See WP:GNG. The National Report article does fine as it is.EBY (talk) 01:15, 16 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 decker^talk 02:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Witham[edit]

Doug Witham (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 amateur golfer, fails WP:NGOLF. Being medalist at Australian Amateur is not "winning a national amateur" (criteria 4). Contested prod. May have COI issues. Tewapack (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Tewapack (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NGOLF and WP:GNG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Passing mentions in sources for a BLP. Logical Cowboy nails it. Widefox; talk 19:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment all major editors are from suspected paid editing sock/meat farm listed at WP:COIN, ANI, 2 SPIs Widefox; talk 19:39, 16 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 decker^talk 02:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christel Bankewitz[edit]

Christel Bankewitz (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 about a female concentration-camp guard. The main reference is evidently from a Polish museum project to do with the Stutthof camp. I cannot read Polish, and am willing to assume that the sources are accurate and verify the content of the article, but there must have been hundreds if not thousands of camp guards, and just having been one is not enough for notability. Searches find her in lists like this, one of 295 names, but none of the "significant coverage" required by the WP:GNG

In my view, this would qualify for WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, but I bring it as a test case, the first of a series of similar articles about female camp guards created by new user Racine262 (talk · contribs). If the result is delete, I will nominate the others as a batch, unless any of them have distinguishing feature suggesting individual notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:SOLDIER and WP:PERP appear to be the most relevant guidelines, which the subject fails. - Location (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ping User:Poeticbent who has a lot of experience in this type of articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep changed to Comment. Please, no more articles like this about any one of the hundreds of staff members usually listed in blocks of data in Holocaust literature. Probably more info could be found eventually, but I would like to encourage the author to focus his attention rather on convicted war criminals from the Stutthof trials who don't have articles yet. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 07:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were 295 women guards (Aufseherinen) at Stutthof.[1] In most cases, their postwar whereabouts and even the dates of their births and deaths are not known. Also, I just noticed that the stub in German Wikipedia about Christel Bankewitz was already deleted. Poeticbent talk 15:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Entirely unremarkable, one in thousands. Renata (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination, fails WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Poeticbent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above but mainly per Poeticbent. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:15, 18 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--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moke Hill (band)[edit]

Moke Hill (band) (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 band. Proximity to a controversy involving a notable person or company doesn't confer notability; the cited sources are covering the controversy, not Moke Hill, with only a brief mention of either the band or any of its personnel if they mention them at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CEO of the company in the middle of the controversy chose to publish a statement from the band during the height of the controversy, and multiple media outlets are quoting a member of the band in their coverage. The second linked reference to the band/controversy also only mentions Bono, Jason Aldean and Aloe Blacc for a line or two (with Berry's statement getting a full paragraph).

Spotify also tweeted a link to the band to it's million followers during the height of the controversy ("A big thanks to @mokehillband! Read why they stay pro-Spotify and stream their hit, "Detroit" http://spoti.fi/1464fjX http://spoti.fi/1tVJgbN). The drummer of the band is also a member of a different "notable" band (Haim). Isn't wikipedia meant to be a place that people can find background on people/topics/bands in the news?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Nom. Controversy barely brushed by Moke Hill and does nothing for notability. Only leaves a couple of mentions about the band. Bgwhite (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. No references found that can make this band notable.Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 03:36, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BizEquity[edit]

BizEquity (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 appears to be WP:SPAM. It was developed in August by a WP:SPA (see Acaetano18's special contributions).

The content is based on the business's own promotional material and one article from a ezine I don't believe to be WP:RS, only WP:V (see the ezine's about us page. I fail to see how this company meets WP:GNG. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: there are a number of external links to various journals carrying articles/mentions of this business but, having checked them, at least one is a pay-for press release site. Other links are very much peripheral online blogs (even where associated with what appears to be an RS, it's in the blog sphere of the journal's online presence) and self-starter promotions zines. There's only one link to the Financial Times I can't access (hit a paywall), but it really smacks of being reliant on minor mentions and paid promotional sites masquerading as articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this Philly Inquirier, same problem with the Financial Times paywall. Personally, I don't differentiate so hugely between blogs and news when they are hosted by major news outlets and written by professional journalists and clearly more than just opinion pieces. Also found this in American Banker. JTdale ^Talk 23:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the online search tools to explore these articles prior submitting this and, yes, admittedly there are mentions. The problem with the mentions is that they all end up being variants of the same promotional spiel by Carter. I did find a couple of references in books critiquing them amongst other such companies regarding the methodology, but they're pay-for only. If you read the article, it certainly reads as being promotional and would need a good clean-up. Other than that, I'm not convinced that it meets GNG but is in WP:OTHERSTUFF territory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- Mentions in forbes is a personal opinion and not a result of discussion. Article seems to be biased and my decision will be a NO for WP:SPAM.Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete spam. I found a bunch of routine announcements and press releases. Nothing satisfying WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above arguments. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps there is an argument for notability [2], but the current article is so full of spam that it is honestly not even worth keeping.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH and article appears to violate TOU. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:33, 25 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. Despite the weak rationale the nominator gave to delete the article, the keep rationales are even weaker, with most of them sorely focusing on WP:GNG with sources of the event within a few weeks of it occurring, with none of them rebutting the stronger delete rationales that this event fails WP:EVENT with no significant lasting coverage. Secret ^account 19:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod[edit]

Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod (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)

• Might as well include redirect (Yehoshua Weisbrod), one way or another, no? Quis separabit? 17:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many of Palestinians killed, just in the last couple of weeks. Like 22-year-old Kheir Hamdan, in Galilee, or 21-year-old Mohammad Imad Jawabra (see http://www.imemc.org/article/69681). None of these are given a Wikipedia article, so why one for Yehoshua Weisbrod? Are all Jewish victims notable, while Palestinian victims are non-notable? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Huldra recently nominated Palestinian stone-throwing, [3] a new article of mine, for deletion with similarly insubstantial arguments.ShulMaven (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that I also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Netanel Arami, a similar article made by User:ShulMaven, and that article was deleted. Huldra (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the deletion of the Netanel Arami article to have been ill-judged. Article was about a work accident in which construciton worker, suspended by ropes,fell to his death. Public clamor ensued. Rope was gfound ot have been cut. Inter-ethnic hate crime is suspected but the news sotries have temporarily halted due to a gag order. It is likely to regain notability when the gag order is lifted, as occurred with the Murder of Shelly Dadon.ShulMaven (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra also just nominated another new article of mine, Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni for deletion, within an hour or 2 of its creation.ShulMaven (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Murder of Shelly Dadon should probably also be deleted. Nobody is convicted of it yet. There are accusations that the father was responsible for the killing. In any case; to put this in the category "terrorist incidents in Israel" before anyone is convicted is rather outrageous. And in any case; tragic as it is: young females are murdered all the time, in any country. Without it being automatically labeled as a "terrorist act". Huldra (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nom - So go write some appropriate articles on those events that are notable by wp standards and not covered. And read wp:otherstuffexists. Which addresses your point. Saying specifically:

"The claim of "Other Stuff Exists" most often arises in article deletion debate, where it is often used in a poor manner. Examples:... Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt!".

It's not cause for you to nominate for deletion articles on notable events, which articles cover matters that your POV wishes wp would not cover. Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability established in the article. Many pre-internet events lack Wikipedia articles, yet have notability because of their impact on events at the time they happened.ShulMaven (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is based on the rules discussed in WP:GNG and other areas. In this case notability is established by reliable sources discussing the killing as mentioned in the article including The New York Times. This has nothing to do with politics, just notability. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The notability guideline most applicable is WP:EVENT. One trivial reference in 31 years (i.e. [4]) is insufficient to pass WP:LASTING, WP:DEPTH, and WP:PERSISTENCE. I have no objections to referencing the killing in Palestinian stone-throwing. - Location (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEMPORARY It was a big deal then, it retains significance now.ShulMaven (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject specific guidelines exist to help define what constitutes a "big deal" for Wikipedia purposes, and this event doesn't pass. There is no indication that this ever would have passed WP:EVENT had Wikipedia and these guidelines been in place in 1993, so WP:NOTTEMPORARY is not applicable. - Location (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DoctorBob3. Shame that Huldra is basing this request on political mudslinging instead of offering any policy-based arguments. Clear example of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The absence of a bunch of comparable spam articles on Arabs who were killed is ultimately not relevant, but Wikipedia is not a news source, and the event evidently didn't garner any significant coverage more than a couple of days after it happened or have any lasting effect. (Even assuming that "people talked about Gaza for a bit" constitutes an effect, both of the sources cited there lump this in with a bunch of other killings. The sources don't think that it's individually notable, so why should we?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again 2 years later when the alleged gunman was made police chief by the PA in violation in the Oslo Accords, but the main point is that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY.ShulMaven (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, but the event needs to have been notable in the first place for that principle to "kick in." If it's a news-cycle event that's covered for a few days before the world forgets about it, it never had that notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(In fact, your link specifically points this out, explaining that brief bursts of news coverage don't pass WP:EVENT notability guidelines.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability per sources. It's not just another incident involving stone-throwers. In this case someone was killed, it's as important as other fatal terrorist attacks against Israelis.--Keramiton (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per sourcing, terrorist attack against israelis which is international news.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Expanded sourcing of incident and its impact now in the article make notability very clear.ShulMaven (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep . Per GNG. Robust coverage, with full-length coverage from half a dozen countries around the world. Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources I sampled give very little attention to details, usually not even the person's name. The March '93 killings as a whole are notable and consequential, see Blockade of the Gaza Strip#1989–2004, but this cannot be said of the distinct events. The info worth salvaging here can make it into one line at Yasser Abu Samhadana. trespassers william (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling error? Take a look at In Israeli's Unusually Brutal Death, Usual Lessons [5] and also at [6]] from the New York Times which covers the fuss over the behavior of the UNRWA representative who witnessed the murder, also from the New York Times.ShulMaven (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• note I am continuing to build, source article. But some commentators seem to be risking location bias, that is, arguing for deletion of an article on a subject that would certainly be WP:NOTABLE if it had taken place in an English-speaking place, say, WoolwichShulMaven (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per GNG. Quis separabit? 15:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Random act of violence with no lasting historical significance. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "NOTNEWS states the following:

  "editors are encouraged to ... develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: ... News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of ... events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."

  The nature of the coverage of this event, which consists of many substantial articles devoted to it in various countries in different parts of the world in various languages, shows this to be something quite different than the "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" that NOTNEWS is meant to protect the Project from. Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Article meets GNG because of international coverage at the time of this unusual incident; Because of widespread coverage of the political impact at the time; and because of coverage coming years later due to status of the killer vis a vis the Oslo Accords.ShulMaven (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Killings of Israelis or Palestinians are, unfortunately, routine events. As such, WP:EVENT applies. I don't see any evidence that the victim here was notable for anything else than this one event, nor do I see any significant lasting impact. --Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 25 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 List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TLC#Current_programming. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

90-day fiancé[edit]

90-day fiancé (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 on a television series gives no reasons for why it is notable, and cites only one source, which is the website of the channel the program aired on. I did a search for reliable sources to cite for this show and I'm coming up short. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:25, 12 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 20:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TLC#Current_programming for now. I do think that we should leave the article's history intact, though. The reason is that I did manage to find some coverage of the show, but it's a lot lighter than I like for television shows and I didn't really find any true reviews of the show in general. There's enough to where I think that it will get more as the show continues to air, but it's still a little light. I've fixed the title- it looks like the channel itself does not spell fiance with an accent, so I've moved the page to match the official title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:- Tokyogirl79 has figured out strong points. Redirect will be much better option than delete.Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 03:27, 14 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 An Awesome Wave. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolve Me[edit]

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

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

The article barely meets WP:NALBUMS Karlhard (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to An Awesome Wave. The single itself doesn't appear to be notable by any measure, but the album it released on is very clearly notable under WP:NALBUMS. Deadbeef 21:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Deadbeef's reasonable rationale. "Dissolve Me" is certainly a plausible redirect. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:58, 14 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) 01:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Key[edit]

Travis Key (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)

Did not play in the NFL; doesn't appear to have played in the CFL. standard college career. Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH, WP:GRIDIRON or WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't look like he actually played in a game in the CFL and definitely still isn't on the team like the article claims.--Yankees10 17:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE Secret ^account 01:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), nor pro football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season game in the CFL or other top-tier pro league -- confirmed by CFLapedia). Fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:26, 20 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 Air compressor. Nobody thinks that this should be retained as a separate article. Can be editorially merged from the history to the extent editors may deem desirable.  Sandstein  20:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silent air compressor[edit]

Silent air compressor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• This page looks spammy, and does not say what features in an air compressor make it silent and how. At 06:43, 29 May 2013‎ User:201.141.109.99 wrote in its talk page: "this is an entirely fabricated page by a company who produces silent air compressors which is why it reads like an advert. it needs to be removed or to have the bias removed; citations added for all the ridiculous claims and specific information on how the compressor type is made or functions as otherwise it serves no real purpose here.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For one thing no machine with moving parts can ever really be totally silent, even if we can not hear it it still disturbs the air. The fact that very low noise air compressors are useful for many applications could be mentioned in Air compressor. As this article explains there are several ways that this can be done. There is no one type of "silent air compressor." Borock (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Air Compressor. The article does not claim these are actually silent, but it's a term routinely used for all sorts of relatively quiet devices. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 20 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 15:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Midida Hrudayagalu[edit]

Midida Hrudayagalu (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:NF. Sources fail WP:RS. Article has been tagged for improvement for six months w/o result. PROD was removed with the explanation that web sources are difficult to come by for certain pre-2000 films. However RS sources of some kind are required.WP:OR is inadmissible for establishing notability. It is possible that adequate sources may exist in another language. I will happily reconsider the nom if/when verifiable evidence of notability is presented. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While there is no deadline, I'd hate to see something tossed due to WP:NEGLECT or because the film or language is not well represented online... so I've left a note asking for assistance in sourcing over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Karnataka. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent idea. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! The source cited Kannada Movies Info is well known, reliable, online database for all Kannada movies. In Kannada world, it is almost equivalent to IMDB. People go there to get information about the movies and comment on them and add trivia etc. It may not be well known to Non Kannada people but well known in regional sphere. In fact, all the articles about kannada films that cite this regional database should not get nominated for deletion. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. None of these sources provide the in depth coverage from RS sources called for by the guidelines. They do little more than note the film's existence and regurgitate the basic information normally found in the credits. Just because something exists does not mean it's entitled to an article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found two local sources. First one a main stream news paper (Kannadaprabha) article about a song in this film and another an online tabloid listing this film as Shruti's successful film. Please check the Article.Those who can read Kannada can verify the citations. I think now we can remove this article from deletion queue. Thanks! Lokesh 2000 (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the discussion is still going to have to wait seven days. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though I am unable to read Kannada, I assume good faith that this Kannada editor is correct. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:01, 15 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 15:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mojugara Sogasugara[edit]

Mojugara Sogasugara (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:NF. Sources fail WP:RS. Article has been tagged for improvement for six months w/o result. PROD was removed with the explanation that web sources are difficult to come by for certain pre-2000 films. However RS sources of some kind are required.WP:OR is inadmissible for establishing notability. It is possible that adequate sources may exist in another language. I will happily reconsider the nom if/when verifiable evidence of notability is presented. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• ...and again here as well, there is no deadline, and I'd hate to see something tossed due to being neglected or again, because the film or language is not well represented online... so I've left another note asking for assistance in sourcing over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Karnataka. Fingers crossed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Thanks for putting up a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Karnataka. As I commented elsewhere, the cited source Kannda Movies Info is a reliable source. It is so much like IMDB of Kannada Films. Regional reliable sources should be acknowledged even if they are not popular outside their regional audience. All Kannada Film articles that cite this source should not be nominated for deletion. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. None of these sources provide the in depth coverage from RS sources called for by the guidelines. They do little more than note the film's existence and regurgitate the basic information normally found in the credits. Just because something exists does not mean it's entitled to an article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source Filmi-Beat, an online Kannada Tabloid that noted popularity of a song of this movie and listed it in its top ten song selection. Those who can read Kannada can verify it. It is difficult to present online resources for notability of kannada movies released around 15-20 years back. As the movie stars a mainstream actor, and directed by a well known director, local tabloids and news papers definitely covered it back then when it was released but there was very little internet presence at that time in Karnataka so hard to find that coverage online now. The only way is to go to library, dig deep in archives to obtain hard copies of the news prints which is very time consuming and not many people would do that. I think at least now deletion process can be stopped Thanks!Lokesh 2000 (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the discussion is still going to have to wait seven days. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though I am unable to read Kannada, I assume good faith that this Kannada editor is correct. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:02, 15 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 decker^talk 04:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Famicom Fountains[edit]

Famicom Fountains (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)

BLP with no indication of notability. —Swpb^talk 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Article does not indicate why its subject is significant and I could not find any reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My search for sources yielded nothing to suggest that this artiste reaches either the general notability guidelines or the specific guideline for musicians. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: With only the user-generated blog review referenced in the article as a non-primary source, honestly, we could blank the whole thing and fall within BLP. I didn't have any more luck finding good sources than anyone else. This is the creation of a SPA for whom this was the sole Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 04:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I cannot find anything to show the importance of the subject. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 16 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. Consensus DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics-pragmatics-syntax trinity[edit]

Semantics-pragmatics-syntax trinity (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 was AfDed incorrectly and without explanation by a new user. Taking a look, it's pretty clear that this is WP:OR. The second sentence of the lead is "'Semantics-pragmatics-syntax trinity' is probably not an official term." Certainly fails WP:GNG and could probably be deleted per WP:NEO, WP:NOT, WP:MADEUP, or a host of others. I see it was PRODded with no explanation a while back, and thus declined, so that may preclude CSD. Given that, and the aforementioned attempted AfD, this seemed like the more appropriate venue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, one of those cases where if WP:MADEUP was a speedy tag, it would be long gone. The only mention I can find of this subject online is in some obscure textbook-looking-thing, and no hits on scholar. Deadbeef 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deadbeef: there is a (poosible) speedy tag: WP:A11. Stickee (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considered, but the article has to explicitly state that the author or someone they knew created the content according to the tag. Deadbeef 00:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Delete this article per the above nomination and the above opinion from Deadbeef. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage of this term anywhere. Possible WP:A11. Stickee (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:MADEUP ~KvnG 16:28, 15 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 decker^talk 04:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Thers Sørensen[edit]

Marcus Thers Sørensen (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)

Too soon. Article about a footballer who plays for a team that is not in the top league in his country. Initially created unreferenced, BLP-PRODded; I removed the PROD after a reference was added, but it is a club listing and shows him as not in fact having played for the adult team yet. After a search in Danish, I cannot find any other sources. The article has now been created on da.wikipedia but there is nothing there to indicate notability either. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:55, 14 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 decker^talk 04:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hirosh Joseph[edit]

Hirosh Joseph (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 seem to meet WP:GNG. The three refs currently in the article are all primary (his book and his two patents). The external link mentions he was a speaker at a convention but doesn't go into significant detail. I can't find any other reliable sources. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Note that the book was edited by another person, and Hirosh is listed as one of two "with contributions from...". In any case, none of the references is a third-party source, and I can't find any. Oddly enough (and I cannot confirm or disprove any of this), the book is listed on a web site that calls out plagiarism in the security field [7], and claims that much of the book is plagiarized. This does not affect the !vote, but might be an interesting area for someone to investigate. LaMona (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not notable; no significant publications. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 21 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 decker^talk 04:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatory L. Mosha[edit]

Salvatory L. Mosha (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 businessman, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG ukexpat (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Evidence of significant coverage of Mosha in published reliable sources is entirely lacking - the two sources cited name Mosha, but do nothing whatsoever to establish his notability by Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NOT MEMORIAL. . Hem ight be notable, but it would need starting over, with better sources. DGG ( talk )

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 04:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hope[edit]

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights Peter Rehse (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails, per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:03, 15 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 decker^talk 04:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Ulises Gutiérrez[edit]

Erick Ulises Gutiérrez (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 boxer, no title fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and lacks any significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable boxer who doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBOX. Having a notable person as his promoter doesn't add to his notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:17, 16 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 decker^talk 04:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cel-Sci Corp.[edit]

Cel-Sci Corp. (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:CORP - no detailed secondary sources about the company, just listings in stock price databases, two papers about a drug and a PR Newswire press release. McGeddon (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG generally - I searched news and web sources, found only stock listings and self-generated news releases that were not carried by syndication. -- Scray (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their therapy is not yet approved. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 21 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 decker^talk 01:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago Live Music[edit]

Thiago Live Music (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)

A musician that has only released one single. Another single is in an advertisement, but I don't think it has been released. Unable to find refs beyond social media. Bgwhite (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 29 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) 00:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources dont appear to prove notability and 2 out of 3 appear to be primary sources. Amortias (T)(C) 23:22, 6 November 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An online YouTube artist with no evidence of any chart success or media coverage. I must admit his single "Rio" is a catchy tune online "Rio" and Rio (acoustic) with Panacea Project but again not much following. Delete. If other colleagues choose to keep it though, I suggest renaming the article Thiago (singer) werldwayd (talk) 00:37, 21 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. Unfortunately, none of the "keep" !votes rises above "I like it". Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sushmendra Dubey[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Sushmendra Dubey (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)

Don't believe this person meets GNG. Google returns nothing reliable, lots of linkedin etc. Page is also written like an advertorial Gbawden (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI believe a person of stature of Susmendra Dubey should have listing on Wiki. His name is already mentioned in other article in wiki where link is provided. More contribution time should be provided. I am not related or have any association. Created his page after being impressed with quality of his work. He is mentioned in various newspapers regularly and is on TV featuring his work. Finding and adding more linksRajsaini24 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added lot of reference material verifiable by me and two other users as I can see in the history. Please comment after seeing the edit. Doing research. Will add more relevant material and links. Request the article to be removed from AFD list and given time for improvement. Rajsaini24 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - India Tribune article is nothing more than passing mention about them adopting a child, routine news coverage. The Chennai Online link is just a name listed as a juror on a contest. Own website is not a reference. AdsofTheWorld is just three of his images, no information. Wiki2 is not a reference, it is literally just wikipedia copied and Wikipedia is not a reference. DubsPhotography is non-independent reference. Coloribus is some issue as AdsofTheWorld. Food And Night Life doesn't even mention him. ForbesIndia is a comment on a news article by him, not indepedent. MonsoonSalon is just a passing mention. Next two are blogs, unreliable. ProductionParadise is an advert by him. IndiCulture is a comment by a user mentioning him, unreliable. Same with bollywooders. Unreliable non-independent reference next, next one is a blog. Basically, all of them are trash. JTdale <supTalk 23:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Moveagreed the links provided are weak but still not prove that the person is fake. If any mention in known newspaper like Tribune or the person to feature as juror is still an indicative that person is worth considering. Other links also feature his photographs, so giving a benefit of doubt that photographer will be featured with the photographs only rather than text. With these mentions, request that the article be moved to drafts and more time be provided to improve on it rather than straight AFD. As per my impression he is a well known personality in the country. As all the links had been sourced independently through google, I request that time should be given to source through media agencies who store news coverages as imaged articles are not possible to search through google.Rajsaini24 (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional, poorly sourced, no clear evidence of significance among the flimflam, generally grotesque. Incidentally, in its current state, the article "Akshat Chopra" (to which this article links) has considerable comedy value, which I presume is unintended. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move. Links are surely weak but does not prove the person do not have significant standing in fashion photography. Link clearly shows he had been a juror in FTV work. Also with photographs I can see work with famous film personalities. It is hilarious comment of my fellow editor to say another wiki article is comedy. When something is already with approval on wiki, it should be considered a substantial link. Till now I am seeing reference of only editors who are not related to or without any link or knowledge of Indian media industry. Moreover I had checked other photographers wiki pages, including the mentioned Prabhuda in this article. Most of them do not have media links or any reliable links. Most are just depending on the links to work in photography done. The lines of this article are similar to them only. More time should be provided to add links related to work. Would like to invite some editors with india links or knowledge to contribute the suggestion on further action on this article. Till then article to be moved to drafts. 115.164.62.162 (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC) — 115.164.62.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. Does not demonstrate sufficient notability within his fields of advertising or photography (no awards, no products such as books, no exhibitions) merely that he has been a worker in these fields. -Lopifalko (talk)

• Keep. I am related to media profession in India. I had seen plenty of mention of this person on TV. Soon will edit with links and more info on this person. Already had mnailed to various TV channels to provide links for Sushmendra. He is a renowned personality in Fashion and Photography world. It does seems a tall claim, but can demonstrate with authentic links soon.Already added a TV link earlier also about him.Dubswiki (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC) — Dubswiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete We require coverage of the article subject in independent reliable sources and that clearly does not exist here, nor can I find any. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not WP:LINKEDIN. I am sure he's a competent photographer, but doesn't means he's "notable" to merit a wikipedia article about him.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:21, 25 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. Failing verifiability (WP:V) is a compelling reason for deletion. The two "keep" opinions are disregarded because they do not address this problem, instead contending that the subject is notable because of his political position. However, considering that nobody here has been able to verify that the subject exists and/or holds that position, the argument is beside the point.  Sandstein  20:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rafiqul Islam Khan[edit]

Muhammad Rafiqul Islam Khan (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 references are broken. Verification failed. I have searched with the titles of these news articles in google but could not find any article. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. General Secy of a mainstream and important political party of a country is certainly notable. What nominator needed to do is, tag it with refimprove, not AfD. – nafSadh did say 04:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree that the general secretary of a major political party is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 5 November 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, Deadbeef 06:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - I agree, the general secretary should be notable, but this doesn't even appear to be his name. The general secretary at the time was Maulana Rafiqul Islam Khan, not Muhammad. See this and this and he doesn't appear to be in the position anymore. There website lists Shafiqur Rahman as the General Secretary. In addition, very little decent news coverage exists of the man. JTdale ^Talk 00:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the points raised by JTdale above and the nominator. It is not demonstrated through reliable sourcing that the subject of this article is the general secretary of a major political party. The "Keep" !votes do not address the very important verifiability concerns. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:36, 20 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redline (band)[edit]

Redline (band) (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)

Seemingly unnotable band. No significant coverage in reliable sources provided or found in my searches; fails the notability standards for bands. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The bands only EP is also nominated for deletion; discussion here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Hell, I just pulled up the New Zealand Google and found squat on either the band or the album. NN. Nha Trang 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Don't know where you looked but a NZ Google search on Redline indie band pulled up enough to improve the article although I am unsure if they are strong enough to pass notability NealeFamily (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Okay---if you found sources which indicate notability, enough to improve the article, where are they? How about posting them, either to the article or here? Nha Trang 20:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 15:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with as much as I could find - I suspect they are below the notability threshhold, but someone with knowledge of the music scene should clarify this. An earlier AfD for the article that resulted in Keep may be relevant - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redline (band) NealeFamily (talk) 00:39, 12 November 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, Deadbeef 06:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After 3 weeks there is no indication that there are sufficient independent sources to satisfy SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:28, 21 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 deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A2, "Article in a foreign language that exists on another project: exists in English on en-wiki". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baja ringan[edit]

Baja ringan (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)

Baja Ringan (in Indonesian) is Mild steel in english. This article exist in english wikipedia, so we can deleted Baja ringan article. @NnAs (talk) 05:14, 12 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 Craig Cobb . Consensus that the article does not meet our notability guideline, but no argument presented against a redirect, and WP:ATD prefers that outcome. j⚛e decker^talk 04:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Podblanc[edit]

Podblanc (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)

Just another racist website. This one is mentioned by the SPLC, but that seems to be their greatest claim to fame. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG et al. Deadbeef 06:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although I guess a redirect would be acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, to what? Racism? :) Drmies (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Craig Cobb (it's already listed there). LaMona (talk) 20:22, 16 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Foundation for Children[edit]

Giving Foundation for Children (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) 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 28 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) 00:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While none of the reasons listed in the nomination for deletion inherently justify a deletion the organization doesn't seem to have garnered any real attention except for some tangential coverage in a local Fox affiliate. As there is a very low bar for creating a 501(c)3 in the United States I see no inherent encyclopedic notability without direct coverage by third-party reliable sources.. GraniteSand (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability. Fails GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:19, 18 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. Consensus is that this compilation is original research.  Sandstein  20:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in non-Anglophone countries with English names[edit]

List of football clubs in non-Anglophone countries with English names (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)

A trivial intersection of characteristics which might be interesting on a fan-oriented site but is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. The article itself is inevitably based on original research, reflecting the unsuitability.of arbitrary categorization.
To clarify, even if every "fact" was cited, it still wouldn't indicate the importance/notability of the intersection presented.ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A fascinating topic on the legacy of British colonialism and the global dissemination of English language and culture in sports. As far as I can tell the context for the article is established in the first reference and then expounded on in the second. I see no basis for the assertion that the article is based on a foundation of original research and so can't find a basis in policy for deletion. GraniteSand (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read both the article and the policies detailed in WP:OR. You will then notice the absolute lack of reliable sources detailing the "legacy of British colonialism and the global dissemination of English language and culture in sports". If you then click on the articles for the clubs listed, you'll discover that many of them have absolutely no details as to where their names originate. Therefore, the "facts" detailed in this article are either original research (if true) or utter bullshit (if untrue). As for the article being fascinating, well, I did say it might be interesting on a fan site. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you then click on the articles for the clubs listed, you'll discover that many of them have absolutely no details as to where their names originate. But the article makes no claim about the origin of most of the names. I'm a little confused as to whether you're challenging this article on grounds of original research, or of notability. Could you clarify? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both the article and our policy on OR and suggesting that I haven't, without any indication of what it is in said policy I'm running afoul, is condescending and not particularity constructive. You asserted that the subject of the article was arbitrary and OR, which is demonstrably not true as indicated by the provided reliable sources. As for the entries on the list, we have a simple policy that unsourced information be provided with a reference if the passage in question could reasonably be brought into question. That these are football clubs and that these football clubs have partially or entirely English names strikes me as noncontroversial and entirely self-evident. Unless you disagree? Without those two points of contention being validated there is nothing about this article that qualifies it for deletion under our criteria. GraniteSand (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to be the only person why considers the article to be OR so I'll have to presume that my interpretation of the policy is somewhat accurate. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the list is original research. GraniteSand is right that the introduction proposes a valid topic, but the contents of the actual list are pure WP:OR. I'd support a properly referenced article on the topic of English names and terms used in football, but not this list. Pburka (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I fail to see how this list is original research. Are you claiming that it "combine[s] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"? If so, what is that conclusion? Grover cleveland (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there any sources to even support the simple claim that the names in the list are English? Pburka (talk)

• Delete I agree that this is a list of dubious notability – as Suriel succinctly says, much better suited to a fan-site than an encyclopedia. Aspirex (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clearly not non-notable, as established by the fact that the topic is discussed by reliable sources properly provided in the article and there has been no assertion put forth that it fails any specific notability guideline. I'd also say that your follow-on point is entirely subjective and has nothing to do with he criteria for deletion. I, for example, have absolutely no interest in football clubs but still found the article to be interesting for historical and cultural reasons. I'd never search this information out on a "fan site" because I'd never be on a soccer fan site. GraniteSand (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. There is no indication that the topic is discussed in depth in the 9 sources provided (which is a paltry number for the amount of clubs listed). So some clubs have English words in their name - so what? That is a question that would need to be answered repeatedly by reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as clear OR. GiantSnowman 13:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - It is rather interesting, but it appears to fail Wikipedia:No original research. IJA (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain precisely why? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Sad to have to say Delete This is the most interesting article I have read this month (at least) but it does run afoul of WP's "no original research" policy. Whenever (which is often) someone puts together a list to point out an interesting trend, tendancy, whatever that is original research. I'm sure WP has articles on the world-wide influence of the English language. If someone had published, in a "reliable secondary source", an article specifically on the sub-topic of sports team names then there could be an article English language influence on world sports team names (or something like that.) Until them the topic is not considered notable and is probably not important enough to be included in the general articles on the English language. But still very interesting. Thanks. Sorry. Borock (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly an own research. – Michael (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to whose who are claiming that this article is Original Research, can you please explain precisely why it is Original Research? Would it still be Original Research if we added reliable references for every single entry in the list attesting to the club's name and the fact that the name contains English elements? (which I am willing to do, but I don't really want to put the effort in if you're going to delete the article anyway). This article does not, as far as I can see, violate policy by "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". What other policy would it violate? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the Original Research comes in where you are the one saying whether a club qualifies for this list, rather than citing a source that discusses a club's english name (despite being in a non anglophone country). If you can pare down this list to only the few entries for which a source does exist to discuss the english name, you'd probably be OK. I see that you have userfied the article, so this can probably be deleted now - but keep at it! Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal I understand some of the concern about this article is that some of the entries of the list are not referenced to have English names. If you can give me a few days, I am willing to add an RS for each club attesting that its name is English, and to delete any entries that I can't find an RS for. However, I'm concerned that the article may still be deleted for other reasons I don't fully understand. Can anyone comment on this proposal? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would still ask the question - why is it of any consequence that some clubs have elements of the English language in their names?
Maybe some of them just thought English words sounded cool. Maybe some wanted to emulate the success of British clubs. Maybe some of them had expats associated with the management of the club. Maybe some of them just made spelling errors.
A (referenced) list of football clubs founded by British expatriates would be much easier to justify. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Very interesting article and would agree with Borock's comments above that an article on the influence of the English language on football club names around the worl could well show significant coverage to satisfy GNG. However, in its current state, there are clear WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issues.

• Firstly, the almost complete lack of sourcing is a major worry. For example, as the article states, there is a club called Santiago Wanderers, but the assertion that the club is named after Wanderers F.C. is not supported by a source and the wording of the article indicated the assertion is doubtful anyway.
• Secondly, the assumption that the word "sport" is English is not correct. It is a word shared by a number of languages and so that entire section is incorrect. The same error is made in assuming "football" is an inherently English word. It may have originated in England but is now so absorbed by other languages that it cannot be asserted as purely English in this context. The article as well indicates that many spellings (such as Fotball or foot-ball) are used by foreign clubs. These are inherently not the same as the English word football.
• Thirdly, the whole section on "Racing" clubs is probably incorrect. While Racing Club de France Colombes 92 may well have adopted an English word, once they had done so, it became a French word (as so many words in French have been borrowed from English). A lot of the other clubs, rather than borrow a word from English in this instance have borrowed the word from a French club and therefore a French word.
• Fourthly, there are numerous other individual errors. For example: Genoa C.F.C. was an English only club when it was founded, it is therefore not notable that it is a club from Italy with an English name as that is what would be expected. The same is true of Newell's Old Boys, an English school would naturally have an English name for its sport clubs.

Like I said, an interesting idea, certainly looks like potential scope for a prose based article on English in football, but as a list there are too many errors and assumptions and far, far too few references for this to be considered encyclopedic. Fenix down (talk) 10:51, 14 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 keepy. S (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden[edit]

Rachel Marsden (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)

If the subject was barely notable 6 years ago she's even less notable now. It appears this article has been refinessed into a vanity project edited by the subject herself and/or her friends. Downwoody (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep notability is not temporary. there are multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in depth for multiple events. AfD is not for clean up of NPOV issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:NOTTEMP. Given the number of times this has been nominated, we would need a much stronger rationale than the one offered up in this nomination which would seem to focus on a potential COI (which isn't a reason for deletion). St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow/speedy keep per WP:NOTTEMP and WP:GNG. Please look at the AfD history next time. Deadbeef 06:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow/speedy keep she's notable. That's not going to change no matter how many times this gets nominated for deletion. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• snow keep, but maybe give out an award for most AFDs ever and reprimand the editor who wasted everybody's time by starting yet another AFD.ShulMaven (talk) 12:49, 18 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) Natg 19 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Hoffman (author)[edit]

Wayne Hoffman (author) (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 author. Does not comply with Wiki standards for inclusion. 98.208.157.62 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hoffman is an established journalist and author, has won a significant literary award, and has edited multiple nationally-distributed magazines. There's a fair claim to notability here. Pietro13 (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - managing editor of at least two notable periodicals. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - fully meets WP:NAUTHOR, won several notable book awards. Has significant coverage to establish inclusion. --///EuroCarGT 04:36, 12 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 15:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia[edit]

Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia (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 encyclopedia. Shortlisted for one award. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Just added some sources (reviews), updated the copy, stripped away the promotional/undue content, etc. It's still just a stub, but a better stub. As far as notability, it only took a few minutes to find those sources. Given that, as well as that this encyclopedia is in its 7th edition, I'm confident more sources are out there, too. Hopefully I'll have time to go through the deeper pages of search results later. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think seven editions is really relevant for this type of work. DK will keep printing it as long as someone will buy it, it doesn't make the content notable and I suspect that very few children's encyclopedias will ever reach any sort of pinnacle of scholarship that would make them notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say a seventh edition made it notable. Seven editions just adds to my confidence that more sources out there (weak keep is based on what I've found). You don't just keep updating and printing a great big book like an encyclopedia if nobody's buying it, and if a lot of people are buying it, there are more likely to be sources. That's all I mean. And it's sources, and not a particular level of scholarship, that determine notability. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine, I understood what you meant but my point is that there isn't likely to be critical discussion of the content that goes beyond merely reporting the existence of the book unless there is something particularly novel about the way they have written a children's encyclopedia. I am quite happy to withdraw if such sources exist. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rhododendrites. Multiple reviews. James500 (talk) 19:08, 28 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 07:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The multiple reviews demonstrate notability and it seems easy to find more coverage. Andrew (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd think any book that manages to get up to a 7th edition has some kind of core notability somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - There are references, but per WP:NBOOK, "Some of these [references] should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." The article won't harm the project if it survives the AFD but I don't believe it improves it or provides worthwhile information. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The book reviews do contain sufficient critical commentary. Whether that commentary has been incorporated into the article yet is irrelevant to notability (WP:IMPERFECT). As long as the reviews exist, they don't strictly even need to be cited in the article, let alone fully summarised in it. James500 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that the book reviews contain sufficient critical commentary, hence my !vote. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Any critical commentary will satisfy that requirement. The words "this book is good" would be enough, because saying that a book is good does not summarise its plot in any way. The reviews contain far more commentary than is necessary to satisfy that requirement. James500 (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that the book reviews contain sufficient critical commentary, hence my !vote. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've read this book, the refs look ok, not much else to say - except WP is a whole lot better. Szzuk (talk) 22:23, 21 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 The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder (Justin Timberlake song)[edit]

Murder (Justin Timberlake song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. No independent third party notability established except for minor passing mentions in "album" reviews. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well, well, well I see we have an army here. First of all, the article is not ready yet. Second, I wouldn't say that 20+ sources are a minor mention of the song especially when you can create a pretty decent article. Third it charted and was performed on a 130 dates tour, even though it wasn't a television performance, it got performed more than a hundred times (do your math!). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 per WP:NSONGS, which states that Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. The sheer length and sheer number of references are not by themselves enough to warrant a separate article per WP:MASK, particularly when said sources only briefly mention the subject. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing is they do not mention it briefly in most times. And also, as I said the article is not ready yet, it's gonna be a lot larger and there will be no place for it in the album article. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 per IndianBio and SNUGGUMS. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 as above. WP:NSONGS is clear. We need significant coverage of the song itself and I don't think we have that at the moment. Things need to be notable before they get articles - promises to add substantially to articles about non-notable things don't serve to make those things more notable, unfortunately. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:43, 12 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. Rather horrendous unencyclopedic article. Needs major cleanup and addition of a discussion of the impact of this piece of legislation. I don't find any of the !votes well-grounded in policy '"seems" or "might be" notable and remarks like that). However, there are no good "delete" !votes either, so I have to conclude that the consensus of this debate is to keep the article. Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS ACT Karnataka (PTCL) of 1978[edit]

PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS ACT Karnataka (PTCL) of 1978 (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)

Wikipedia is not a law textbook. Providing the text of a law, without any context or analysis, does not meet the encyclopedic purposes of Wikipedia. (Article proposed for deletion with the same rationale; PROD removed by article author.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- very ordinary statute that appears to be some sort of "special bill" .Bearian (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Notable. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 satisfies GNG and WP:STATUTE. (There will probably be a lot of undigitised print sources sitting in libraries in India aswell). There really is no such thing as non-notable primary legislation (with the possible exception of private Acts affecting very small numbers of people (eg a single individual or family), and exceptional cases such as post office renaming Acts, which might possibly be suitable, not for deletion, but for redirection to a tabulated list of such Acts, and nothing less than that (they are not mentioned in STATUTE at the moment, but notability doesn't automatically preclude a merger)). An Act interfering with property rights everywhere within a (very large) state such as Karnataka is certainly worthy of notice. An Act that prevents an entire class of people from selling their land is clearly very important indeed. WP:MILL, mentioned above, is an absurd essay. This page is not, however, an encyclopedia article. It is just the text of the Act (criteria 3 of NOTMIRROR), except possibly for the section headed "Limitations of the Act" (which is referenced to blogspot). Unless it is rewritten, it should probably be transwikied to wikisource, assuming that it is accurate. James500 (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve for the reasons given above. I have supplied a new lead paragraph and moved the article to Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. I don't think NOTMIRROR is an issue now, though the text of the Act should still be placed in wikisource. James500 (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Notable.Primarily this law is ex post facto /retrospective in nature and carries the problems that arise from retrospective laws. Another point is that because of a lack of information about this PTCL law many citizens in Karnataka have lost home and property. Knowledge empowers people to protect themselves, and Wikipedia is also a source for such information, hence this article should not be deleted, though it can be improved upon.RameshanJT (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is not question that the law is notable. But the article, as written, would require a fundamental rewrite to be a valid Wikipedia article. The article as written merely gives us the text of the law, with no context and no analysis. This is pointless. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved giving more information about the law and the administration of the law.RameshanJT (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add context. This may well be important enough, but this cannot be seen with context. I do not think we have ever accepted that all public legislation is notable, and this is state, not national legislation. I think this probably is notable however as addressing a major social issue DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Whether this is federal or state legislation is irrelevant. Karnataka has a much larger population than many sovereign nations. And of course state legislation is still binding in its terms. It is no less the law for having been passed at the state level. It is extremely unlikely that a public Act would fail to be notable. James500 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No policy backed reason provided. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The policy backed reason refers to WP:NOT. Pages whose entire text consists of the text of a law, with no context or analysis provided, do not fit into the definition of what Wikipedia is trying to produce. An article about the law, with a summary of its contents and a well-cited analysis of its context (why it was enacted) and its effects would be a welcome addition to the project, but that's not what we have, and we'd have to completely rewrite the existing article to create that article. In general, if an article requires a complete rewrite from top to bottom to come into line with the project's policies, it is a valid candidate for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for writing and explaining so well, you are very much correct but if I were you, I would be asking relevant wikiprojects or noticeboards for help. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that is no longer true of this article. The introduction that I added to the article is not copied from the text of the Act and cannot therefore violate NOTMIRROR. It would constitute a valid stub in of itself. Sources are available, and whether they are cited in the article at the moment is irrelevant. James500 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And while we are on the subject, the correct procedure for dealing with a copy paste of a public domain source is to tag it with Template:Copy to Wikisource, ask the wikisource admins to import it, then nominate it under CSD A5 once, and only once, it has been transwikied. This kind of thing is never brought to AfD. James500 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remove irrelevant actual text of the law and add a thorough explanation and analysis of the associated social issues. The topic seems notable, but the article currently is mess. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I won't oppose the keeping of this stub, but it still needs a lot of work to get to WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 25 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 decker^talk 03:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André Walker[edit]

André 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)

While the last debate reached no consensus that was because there was confusion over Walker. This article was pointed out to me in another AfD dicussion over a different page, and I realised this was also a prime target for discussion. Walker was notable from one event when he made a gaffe as a mere administrative staff member for a local council, a assembly which is the most junior kind of political body in the UK. It was also pointed out in the last AfD discussion that many of the edits were made to this page and his brother's page, which could indicate non-notability and peacocking. I do not think there is enough notability for a page Westminsterstudent (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 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, czar ♔ 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since being a local borough councillor is not an office that satisfies WP:NPOL, a controversy involving him just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than somebody who should have an encyclopedia article. In addition, most of the sourcing here is to primary sources, with not enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of failing NPOL. So it's a delete, I'm sorry to say. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He is non notable, I went though his refs and from doing that it becomes apparent who he is - a very ordinary person and not a media personality as this article claims. Szzuk (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Add. All of the keep votes from the first afd were from a sock. Should have gone last time. Szzuk (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject fails to meet general notablity guidelines and the article looks very much like a promotional piece, especially given the sockpuppetry situation regarding the article's creator and previous defenders. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although there are a lot of links given, most are either not reliable secondary sources or are not primarily about this individual; the main exception being the single event about his you tube indiscretion. As such, it doesn't meet the notability criteria. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:20, 19 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 and move. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 20:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace Safety & Health Council[edit]

Workplace Safety & Health Council (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) 16:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (update: probably with move/retitle to broaden topic, per discussion below-d) Organization seems legitimate and important. Not sure what animal it is, a charitable nonprofit or an industry association or what. Better for the world that Singapore is advancing its workplace safety management, rather than letting New York City-style and Bangladesh-style fires take down shirtwaist garment workers. Fine to add more references and explain context better, e.g. to link to Singapore legislation such as here. "Article created by wp:SPA" is not a valid article deletion reason. Article has stood for many years, there is not an active promotional activity going on. And back many years ago it looks like there were 2 main editors. No deletion rationale, seems important: Keep. --doncram 01:34, 29 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, czar ♔ 16:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article is essentially unsourced, and the bill cited does not mention this organization. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I could be wrong, but I believe the "Workplace Safety and Health Act" of 2007, which I cited, authorizes statutory powers for enforcement of workplace safety in Singapore, which powers were delegated/given to the Workplace Safety & Health Council, perhaps subsequently, not in the bill itself. The Council had not been named that in 2007. It was given that name later, i guess. This topic seems basic to understanding workplace safety laws and system in Singapore. I'm sorry that I don't follow all the details of how the Council got authority, but I am really rather sure that it is covered in Chinese language sources and/or English language sources and is well-documented. --doncram 03:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I suspect this the same entity allowed for by the legislation cited. That said, primary sources like bills and acts are passed every day by the hundreds of thousands by various parliaments and assemblies. There are many thousands of councils, agencies, departments and other statutory bodies established by legislation. That they are established by legislation is no indication of notability. What we require is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If the entity is indeed important then we require independent sources stating as much (or at least suggesting it). I agree that such sources might exist in languages other than English. But given the existence of many, many, many thousands of such statutory entities without said coverage, probability is not sufficiently high enough for me to be as "sure" as my learned colleague that such coverage is guaranteed to exist in this instance. Without such coverage being evident, I can't see that this meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or merge; I'm always up for a good merge target). They're mentioned in books like this one and Google Scholar finds some interesting bits, especially if you spell out the name. User:Doncram, if you want to improve the article, then you might start with this one, and then see this one about their asbestos initiative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't strongly disagree but a number of the authors of that paper (the asbestos one) are on the council itself - it's hardly independent coverage of the subject; committee members writing about the work of their committee. Such is the nature of councils like this - committee members are often the experts in their field, and we can expect some of those experts to have authored related academic work. But my bigger concern would be that away from the committee members themselves, it is the Ministry of Manpower (with which the council works) that has actually received credit for that program - [8]. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, some of those committee members have received coverage (similar to the above) and some have been extensively cited in their own right. It may be that a number of them qualify for inclusion here in their own right. The notability of committee members doesn't help the council, but they are no less deserving than US, UK or Australian academics. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How about Keep with intention to move to Workplace safety and health in Singapore or other more general title? Linking in with general Occupational safety and health which covers many countries but not yet Singapore. This would address need to include "Singapore" somewhere in title of existing article, already. This would accommodate encyclopedia-appropriate general coverage of topic, with historical perspective, including what seems to me to be exceptionally good science-based initiatives on workplace safety and health in Singapore (of the council and of the Ministry of Manpower). There in fact seems to be academic reliable sources on the history of the topic, such as

• "Building and Sustainability Controls in Singapore: A Journey in Time", by S.P. Low, in Procedia Engineering Volume 20, 2011, Pages 22–40, a Sciencedirect-provided source identified by WhatamIdoing (thanks!)
• "Legislative and regulatory control of construction in Singapore" Unibeam, XIV p (1985), pp. p.19–p.31, S.P. Low, cited in that Procedia Engineering article

and there is news coverage of topic such as

• The WSH 2018 program already cited in the current council article, and covered by the Ministry of Manpower at here, which has gotten external news coverage.
• Singapore Cracks Down on Crane Operators
• Channel News Asia coverage of a construction industry safety initiative, along with other news coverage of that, and Ministry of Manpower's report Ministry of Manpower's report on construction safety
• Links to the notable committee members or other health & safety academics in Singapore as noted by Stalwart111.
• The Malayan Insider coverage of sustainability reporting of SGX Singapore stock exchange companies...which notes "At the Singapore Compact CSR (corporate social responsibility) Summit held on October 17, SGX chief executive Magnus Bocker said the bourse will be mandating that all listed companies publish sustainability reports in a 'comply or explain' approach" and "As Bocker puts it, Singapore is very good in terms of financial reporting and governance. Sustainability reporting can be viewed as taking it to a higher level."
• and more of whatamIdoing-suggested links to be explored,
• and more to be found, try: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was called back by ping from here, and I appreciate the cooperative tone and information sharing of Stalwart111 and WhatamIdoing. The asbestos article mentioned above cites a Singapore paper "Improving WSH Management Singapore", which I find now located at https://www.wshc.sg/files/wshc/upload/cms/file/2014/Improving_WSH_Management_Singapore.pdf which gives a good overview of strategies. Note also this more general revised article would also integrate/link with Wikipedia's isolated article (tagged as isolated/unintegrated since 2012) on Singapore's Workplace Safety and Health Act. I think all this would be helpful, and the current article's over-focus on the organization of the council itself could be reduced. Win - win - win? --doncram 13:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That Singapore is a regional leader, at least, probably can be documented. Here is example of Philippines' news coverage of their lesser Health & safety regulation, comparing Philippines' status negatively relative to Singapore standards. --doncram 13:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support a move to Workplace safety and health in Singapore. I don't think the council is notable but the subject, more broadly, seems to be notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt, Bearian, and WhatamIdoing, did you see this "keep and rename" proposal? czar ⨹ 18:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that sounds like a good idea. — Cirt (talk) 19:16, 23 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Belles[edit]

The Black Belles (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 any of the criteria of WP:MUSICNOTE. I did a Google search and had to go to a couple pages before finding a site that wasn't either selling the item, or user generated (Facebook, Third Man Records, twitter). The soonest was a brief article from the Guardian two and a half years ago, that seemed to highlight that Jack White was the producer. Jack White seems to be their biggest claim to fame...which actually isn't a claim to fame. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO, and notability is not WP:INHERITED. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to have enough coverage to scrape by, though most of the recent coverage seems centered on the singer going solo. Artw (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In other words, don't meet WP:MUSICNOTE.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 04:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look, the more I feel it meets criterea 1. Artw (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have some objective notability at college/commercial radio for charting status and airplay: 11 weeks on the 2012 CMJ charts. <http://www.thesyn.com/news/the-syndicate-makes-a-major-splash-on-cmjs-2012-overall-charts/> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelveteen (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better information on sales in general would very much help the article. Artw (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. A Google search finds enough coverage to show that the subject is clearly notable: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. --Michig (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]