< 2 November	4 November >

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 by User:Nyttend as a long-expired PROD. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Major[edit]

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

Non notable person. Fails PORNBIO. Bbdott (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 November 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 November 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This porn star is clearly not notable but admin Nyttend declined the PROD for technical reasons relating to copyright. His input on this would be welcome. The article just barely clears A7. A search for reliable source coverage yielded a single award nomination. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comment See the final section of Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 April 2 for a response. I'll request assistance at WP:RDL for resolving the copyright issue, and once that's done, I'll delete this article as a long-expired prod, since (as far as I can tell) my action was meant only to hold off deletion until we could get the copyright situation resolved. I'd appreciate it if someone else would close this AFD procedurally — until the tr: message is completed, this mustn't be deleted, while as soon as it's completed, the article will be deleted without the AFD. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, per the followup comment that I made above. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Dettenmaier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a screenwriter, podcaster and film director, teetering on the edge of advertorial tone and relying exclusively on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage to properly verify that he qualifies for an article under any of Wikipedia's inclusion rules. He might certainly qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but this article is not keepable in its current form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:35, 3 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 23:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: resume-style bio that is not sufficiently notable at this juncture. Quis separabit? 02:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is this article is WP:RESUME. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to MP & Silva. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Radrizzani[edit]

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

Radrizzani was a co-founder of MP & Silva together with Riccardo Silva. Silva's article was deleted following AfD in 2012 (recently re-deleted following recreation) for the same reasons I think this article about Radrizzani needs to go too - the biographical info is uncited while the remainder hangs on brief mentions in articles (or 'stuff on the internet') about the company. Radrizzani is not independently notable. There is already a mini-biog in the MP & Silva article so, at best, the article should be redirected here. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MP & Silva per nom's sound analysis, no independent notability. Cavarrone 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MP & Silva, although it may be worth looking to see if anything in this article is worth adding to the bio in that one. (The word counts look similar so perhaps not.) LaMona (talk) 21:51, 8 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 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Games[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There are no sources showing notability for this festival; it was originally supposed to be called the Man Olympics but there is no significant coverage of it under that name either. The event was apparently held for the first time this year so it is probably simply too early for it; if and when it becomes notable, there can be an article about it, but not before. bonadea contributions talk 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My cursory search of the internets for (THE PEOPLE'S GAMES) + (MAN OLYMPICS) returned a few YouTube videos. Pretty clear failure of our General Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deelet4e reltively minor events with no notability. DGG ( talk ) 11:41, 10 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 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Robert Sahlberg[edit]

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

The subject has achieved quite a few medals and decorations, but is this worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia? The article was tagged A7 for several hours, which I have declined as I think it needs discussion, not speedy. The tagger thinks this fails WP:SOLDIER, and I think I agree. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 3 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, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. His awards are not notable and this article sounds more like a puff piece. Hard to believe it had been on WP for 4yrs without anyone noticing Gbawden (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the subject has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, the subject has not received significant coverage in non-primary or secondary reliable sources, therefore the subject appears to not be notable as defined by WP:GNG. As a Soldier, the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:SOLDIER. Therefore, at this time the subject does not appear to be notable, and it is my recommendation that this article is deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of his awards are notable enough to qualify him for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER. His awards do not cause him to pass WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to support WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. --I am One of Many (talk) 09:09, 10 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 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muamer Tufekčić[edit]

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

Non-notable as either kickboxer WP:KICK or boxer WP:BOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like he had some success as an amateur (WAKO), but I didn't find anything to show he meets WP:KICK or WP:GNG since the coverage appears to be just routine fight coverage (results and announcements).Mdtemp (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers and, as far as I can tell, he doesn't have the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pot Casserole[edit]

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

I have found no reliable source on the existence of Pot Casserole. DrDevilFX (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best this is not notable, at worst it's a hoax. Either way, delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing turns up in a search. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's definitely real, but it's just not notable enough for an article. My searches turned up the odd "Do you remember..."-type post in forums and on social networks but nothing like the coverage needed. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - Lack of reliable secondary sources. Too bad, because I find it an interesting topic. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:20, 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, DrDevilFX (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, no notability. Also delete Pot Rice. No sources, no notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Additionally Pot Mash should be deleted. --DrDevilFX (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I propose to consider this snow delete discussion for all the three not-notable articles mentioned here. Delete all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've prodded Pot Rice and Pot Mash, as they have no sources and I can't find any to suggest they're notable enough for inclusion. Deletion seems uncontroversial to me so let's try and forego the deletion discussion :) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All There are no WP:RS to establish any notability. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. The inability to verify this location's existence and the disruptive edits by the article's creator (and its obvious sockpuppet) lead to the conclusion that this is a hoax or some other sort of vandalism. I have no prejudice to recreation if the existence of this location can be verified in reliable sources; however, the deleted article in its present form is of no value, in my opinion. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anaitha[edit]

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

Unable to find any proof of existence: Google maps, GeoNames, some UN website. Also nominating Anaitha,Nepal. Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 19:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a hoax. Note: also not on this map of the district in which it purports to lie When deleting this, make sure to remove the incoming links which seem all to be created by the same user who created this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original author has been blocked from editing: 17:27, 3 October 2014 HJ Mitchell blocked Ravi kumar sah-sonar (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Vandalism-only account)
Delete. I'm going to get you and your little dog too for want of even one WP:RS to say these exist. K7L (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Divorce Financial Analyst[edit]

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

Contested CSD. Nothing indicates notability, neither for the certificate nor for the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts. No reliable sources. Dewritech (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the one that removed the original CSD tag, delete. Talk page discussion has not gone anywhere. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have enough coverage in independent reliable sources (most Google results are just ads for people who do this, and Google books turns up mainly passing mentions). Jinkinson talk to me 20:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dekete no substantial notbility DGG ( talk )
delete Certified <Foo>ian, by the Institute of <Foo>ians. We would need sourcing from outside this COI niche. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Grenader[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced promotional biography. Gamaliel (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, most sources in article and on Google are not reliable, being blogs or social media sites or what have you. Fails WP:BIO. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is a mess. Notability of the subject is borderline, I'm seeing a big enough web footprint to constitute a probable pass. Seems to be a controversial bio on top of it all, so TNT without prejudice towards future recreation might be the best result here. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a strong hint of WP:COI as someone named PlanBguy (PlanB is the name of his company) is the original creator and primary contributor to this. One option would be to remove all of the unsourced or undersourced material, leave a stub, and see if anyone other than the subject himself has an interest in contributing to the article. I didn't find any significant resources, however, so after giving the stub a chance this may be a clear delete. LaMona (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Sigma Epsilon[edit]

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

I don't see notability to meet WP:CORP. Yes, it get some hits on Google books; they seem to be mainly people who've been part of this, not coverage of the institution itself. It doesn't help that the article itself is entirely unreferenced. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third party coverage, non notable. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airdriehill[edit]

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

This is a different scenario to other locations in North Lanarkshire that I felt should be deleted. Google Maps shows "Airdriehill Farm", but there is no evidence of Airdriehill existing as a settlement or a village/hamlet.DrDevilFX (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing on the North Lanarkshire Council website indicates that they recognise this as a place. A Google trip down Airdriehill Road shows little save grass verge, some trees and at one point a dry stane dyke. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. May not exist as described. Wondering if this should be Speedy Deleted G3. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rhododendrites' argument is the best developed and seems to carry the weight of consensus. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Becky's Diner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable restaurant. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though it wasn't totally clear in the last AfD despite the closer's comments, it does pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Several reviews in medium-to-high-profile magazines as well as, it seems, three different Food Network shows (see here). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is predicated on tertiary source (a source reporting on other sources without factual attribution), and a dead link. This diner would be best represented in reviews and other sources outside of Wikipedia. There are some similar entries which might be worthy (but not really) of inclusion such as Peter Luger Steak House or Katz's Delicatessen but there are hundreds of "famous" places that simply do not belong in an Encyclopedia. AAA guide, yes, Fromers, Yes.. Any of these "famous" places will find mentions here and there, paid promotional local or otherwise.--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, as with many other AfDs you've participated in now, the present citations don't matter to whether or not it should be kept. All that matter is that they exist. This restaurant was featured on three different Food Network shows and the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. It's our job to apply the community-created criteria for notability, not make up our own. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rachel Ray, Guy Fieri, ... Postcard Cathy (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites and I added a couple more local sources. --I am One of Many (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Brewington[edit]

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

Non notable broadcaster. Award appears spurious. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Could the nominator please explain xis comment that the award "appears spurious"? The Brewington twins are listed at the hall of fame's website and their selection was reported elsewhere, including several sources that report news of particular interest to African-American readers: Redding News Review [1]; Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education [2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can nominate yourself for the award: "We welcome your interest in Broadcasters Hall of Fame Membership. Please complete the following form and submit for review. We will contact you shortly following application review by our Board of Trustees. Please note current membership fee is $25 payable only if application is approved." I am applying right now! $25 is cheap to enter a hall of fame. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article which is largely unsourced (and un-source-able) has been serially-numerously nominated for deletion and rightly so. Do we have the guts to delete anything on Wikipedia? Factually, this bio is not noteworthy. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AKR Global Group[edit]

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

Non-notable private company, article tagged as unreferenced for nearly two years. Even the company website is a deadlink - in fact the address akr-global.com is for sale and akrglobal.com is suspended.

At the beginning of 2013 there was this extremely spammy version, full of glowing adjectives but giving no hard information like turnover or staff numbers. That was PRODded, and the PROD promptly removed by an IP. The article was then trimmed back to this more neutral, but still uninformative, short version,

This site claims that AKR is "one of the largest North American based conglomerates", but in view of the lack of confirmation elsewhere I find that impossible to believe. Other searches find only routine listings and an April 2012 press release announcing the intention to open a call center in a place called "The Phillipeans". If that actually happened, it did not make the news. A web-hosting subsidiary called Smartweb is the only sign of current activity I can find. There is a one-minute Youtube "Corporate video" which says nothing, and a Twitter account where @AKRGlobal hasn't tweeted yet.

Conclusion: there is not the necessary "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Conclusion of nominator correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs) 18:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches turn up no evidence that this firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:RS to establish WP:GNG --Jersey92 (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Should not be at AfD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goshpur ezra[edit]

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

Can we copy over the code to a new article with a capital E (of Ezra)? TheMagikCow (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The correct action is a page move to Goshpur Ezra, not deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Moving a page. There is no need to take this to AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete was just a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gadai sarai[edit]

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

Could we copy the whole code the create a new article with a capitilised S ( of Sarai)? TheMagikCow (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete moved article to Gadai Sarai Avono♂ (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurubochon[edit]

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

Reliable sources are provided to give the article the appearance of being well-sourced, however inspecting the sources that are accessible (in English) reveals they are not actually about (or even mention) the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 23:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 23:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources that actually talk about the site are hard to find, regardless of language. Dennis - 2¢ 01:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's talk page explains why I accepted it at WP:AFC. It is still my hope that the community is able to improve it such that it genuinely merits a place here. I believe there to be no merit in opting to return it to the Draft: namespace, something no-one has yet suggested. We need a good clear outcome here. Fiddle Faddle 13:43, 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, czar ♔ 16:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination and @Dennis Brown:. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pivotal Greenplum Database. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenplum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to be written like an advertisement and administrator's guide Jp harris2008 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 16:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect "GreenPlum is a division of Pivotal Software"--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Large portion of this article is about Pivotal Greenplum Database instead of the company. Maybe some information should be moved to Pivotal Greenplum Database Jp harris2008 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Obvious keep. Ethnic groups are pretty much guaranteed notable. I really don't understand the proposers deletion rationale, unless it was to imply that they might not actually exist, in which case WP:BEFORE would easily have settled that. SpinningSpark 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathi Mathi[edit]

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

Lots of name dropping but absolutely no evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muthi Muthi mentioned in this journal:-

Dening, Greg Journal Article, Aug 1999 - Subject : Muthi Muthi & Barkindji peoples Summerdrought (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathi Mathi mentioned in this book:-

The Story of Burke and Wills:Forgotten Narratives [3]

These two sources seem to confirm the content of the article Summerdrought (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Native Title Tribunal (Australia). Research Unit[4]

Additional online reference. Summerdrought (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on references above, which would indicate this is a legitimate grouping. It pays to be really careful on these sort of articles, especially as often the spelling of these groups in English is not consistent, which can foil Google searches. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, agree with the comment above. The National Native Title Tribunal reference also has examples of spelling differences as mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Summerdrought (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following references relate to the Mathi Mathi Aboriginal Tribe of Australia:

Penney, J. 2005. Edwards, Agnes (1873–1928) Australian Dictionary of Biography, Supplementary Volume, (MUP). Kijas, J. 2003. Women and Landscape: NSW Western Parks Project. An Historical Study of Women and Outback Landscapes for the Cultural Heritage Division of NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Douglas, K. 1996. Land Systems and Stratigraphy of Lake Mulurulu: Examination of Quaternary Palaeoenvironments. unpublished Honours Thesis. University of Melbourne. Hardy, B. 1969 West of the Darling, Jacaranda Press. Jamieson, H. 1861 First Report to the Central Board appointed to watch over the interests of the Aborigines in the colony of Victoria. McBride, I. 2003. Australian Aboriginal Studies Volume 2. Bowler, J. 2003. ‘Tribal loyalties’: reconnecting with the land A tribute to Mrs Alice Kelly, 1919–2003 Aboriginal History Volume 27 Meehan, B . 1972. The Form, Distribution and Antiquity of Australian Aboriginal Mortuary Practices. University of Sydney. unpublished Honours Thesis. Pressey, R. 1990. Willandra Lakes World Heritage Region Regional Environmental Study. Sydney: NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Sue Jackson, Brad Moggridge and Cathy Robinson . June 2010. Effects of changes in water availability on Indigenous people of the Murray-Darling Basin: a scoping study. CSIRO. Williams, D. 1991. The Case of the Shattered Stones: An Analysis of Three Aboriginal Quarry/Reduction Sites from the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area, South Western New South Wales. unpublished Honours Thesis. Australian National University. Lawrence, H. Mungo Over Millennia: The Willandra Landscape and its People. Maygog Publishing. Hobart, Australia. Mutthi Mutthi Nations 2007.Handback Leaseback Proposal for Yanga National Park. National Water Commission 2014. A Review of Indigenous Involvement in Water Planning, 2013. Canberra Aboriginal People and Squatters Mineral Sands Developments in the NSW Portion of the Murray Basin A Trip on the Rivers - There and Back Again - Part III NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2006. Mungo National Park Plan of Management. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW). Commonwealth of Australia 2009 Gazette No. GN 36, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 Proud Race 2014 Eva-Joe Edwards Yingadi Aboriginal Corporation. The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931) Wednesday 28 December 1910 Humphries, P. 2007. Historical Indigenous use of aquatic resources in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin, and its implications for river management. Ecological Management and Restoration 8:2 pp.106-113 National Parks and Wildlife Service 2010 Mungo 1788-1901 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service National Parks and Wildlife Service 2010 Mungo 1901-1967 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service National Parks and Wildlife Service 2010 Mungo 1967> NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Cunningham 1817. Unpublishd Private Journal. Botanist to Oxley’s First Expedition to the Interior. Oxley, J. J. 1820. Journals of Two Expeditions into the Interior of New South Wales, by order of the British Government in the years 1817-18 – Part I. London. Mitchell, T L: 1838. Three Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern Australia. Vols 1 & 2

I would therefore suggest this is a legitimate subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.116.12.176 (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References to the people mentioned in the article: Chaise Eade- www.deadlyvibe.com.au/2013/06/author-chaise-eades-second-novel/ and http://bookstore.xlibris.com/Products/SKU-0501122050/SECOND-LIFE.aspx Kutcha Edwards- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutcha_Edwards and www.kutcha-edwards.com Gary Pappin- http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/research/publications/ProtectingCountry5.pdf and http://www.wakool.com.au Jack Long- https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-337617945/the-mathi-group-of-languages Ballandella- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mitchell_(explorer) Turundery- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indigenous_Australian_historical_figures Harry Nanya- http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/nanya-7725 Mungo Man- http://www.crystalinks.com/mungoman.html Mungo Lady- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo_remains John Winch- http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/john-winch.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.116.12.176 (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It sure seems like this article can be fixed and that notability can be established with all of the academic and government publications in the wall of text references and the more formatted ones pasted into this discussion. For sure, the article is not there yet but this is fixable. —mako ๛ 18:29, 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 merge to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Hogart[edit]

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

Non-notable TV character. Article full of excessive plot details and zero references. Gloss 13:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. All info is in universe, no independent coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Lacks notability on it's own but is part of a notable group. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Television characters do not automatically qualify for separate standalone articles just because they exist — if you cannot add reliable sources which provide real-world context for why the character is a notable topic in an encyclopedia, then all they really warrant is inclusion in a list of characters. But that's not what this is — it's just an in-universe summary of plots he was involved in, which provides no demonstration whatsoever of why this belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a Degrassi fansite. Delete or merge into a character list unless real sources demonstrating real notability can actually be added. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Society for Ecological Medicine[edit]

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

Failed to find discussion of this organization in secondary sources beyond mere passing mentions. No results in NewsBank aside from 2 letters-to-the-editor. Most of the journal articles were self-attributed to the president of the organization itself. Note: I hadn't ever heard of this organization before reading a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (2nd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT. Does not conform with WP:GNG or WP:NONPROFIT. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has failed to develop--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:RS and fails WP:NONPROFIT --Jersey92 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vivi Pineda[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this WP:BLP, do not believe GNG is met. Also, do not believe that her career accomplishments meet the criteria for NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 13:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A working actor, but her career to date is some way short of notability. AllyD (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darlyne Bailey[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable (WP:NACADEMIC). Only notable in relation to Madonna Constantine. Can be a redirect, I guess, if there is consensus. Quis separabit? 02:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to primarily be a university administrator (not researcher), at an insufficiently high level for WP:PROF#C6. Much of the article is a guilt-by-association WP:COATRACK that does not pass WP:PERP and is problematic with respect to WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Naga Shourya. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naga shourya[edit]

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

Non-notable Telugu actor. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Naga Shourya (the article already exists), and speedy close. Worth taking a few precautionary steps before coming to AfD next time. czar ♔ 22:23, 2 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 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Sin Tung[edit]

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

Autobiography with primarily self-pub sources Mr. Guye (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's developing artist awards fall far short, and I cannot see coverage at this stage that could meet the WP:ARTIST criteria. At best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 19:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Cyprus[edit]

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

I started cleaning up this article (which incorrectly came through AfC; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#AFCH Requirements for use and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#My use of AFCH for details) I found that all of the sources used on this article where not RELIABLE or consisted entirely of OR. I have removed those sources, and having done that, there is nothing left to indicated notability or importance (all of the material is already covered in other broader articles as I understand it). — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 15:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject-matter is irrelevant. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see that it's any less valid than any other list in this category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it's entirely unsourced and shows no evidence of notability... — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please be updated. All information in the page is now linked to Criteria Meeting Sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is one item on the list with only one source... First, an item doesn't make a list in my opinion. Second, one website as a source does not make the requirement of "significant coverage" per WP:42. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - All other items were deleted due to lack of sources (note that some references were deleted because the source pages did not open for some users) or even links to Wikipedia pages, even though most of articles in Wikipedia categorized as lists have at least one item with no Wikipedia links to it. Also, there are some articles in Wikipedia that have no sources at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.215.22 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid inclusion reason either. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 19:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An editor blanking an entire page, except for one item, if that editor is simultaneously the nominator for the page on AfD is a show of bad faith. The template is clear "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" and blanking all but a single list item is a rather obvious end-run against the spirit of that guideline. K7L (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not blank the entire page, I removed all of the copyright violations and removed all content except what was permissible by policy. Calling me a bad faith editor, is a personal attack from you against me. I, however, do not care to pursue it and instead will AGF on your part. I've restored the page to the proper condition, as I am "free to edit the page" and it is not blanked. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 17:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You blanked all but a single item. You're wikilawyering here. K7L (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I removed unacceptable content. This is hardly the same as BLANKing the page. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 19:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Would you care to explain what "unacceptable content" you removed? I can see none whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — If we're going to keep Category:Lists of tallest buildings in Europe full of pages that are exactly like this, why on earth would we not keep this one? This seems like a totally valid list to have in the encyclopedia. If the content is mostly WP:COPYVIO (that seems to be an implication made in this discussion), lets just put together a new list! I'll also point out that because facts (like the height of buildings) are not copyrightable, I'm pretty skeptical about the WP:COPYVIO claims or at least about the idea that wouldn't trivially rewrite the content to work around this. —mako ๛ 18:39, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and Ecology[edit]

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

This seems to be an essay and WP:SYNTH. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly SYNTH and OR. We have Pollution in India, Pollution of the Ganges, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not clear that a 2,700 year old religion has something unique to say about a recent concept. Please convince us otherwise. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not an encyclopedia article. See WP:SYNTH. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 11:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg L Greer[edit]

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

No actual notability, no actual secondary sources other than social media sites, his blog, and an article saying he came in a distant third in an election for a local town council seat. Created by a single purpose account with likely conflict of interest. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Material and references have been added to the article. One says that Greer was the SCLC organizer for a protest about the George Stinney case in Clarendon County, South Carolina (where Stinney lived) that attracted local media attention. Other added references appear less relevant. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Note-Correct and additional references have been added to this page. Also public views on wiki analytics show worthy and continuous response overall. Suggestion to Keep is advised. (Greeralivetoday talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There seem to be a lot of links from WP:RS, but the article is so poorly wikified that it is difficult to determine the true notability of the subject and the relevance of GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, some of the sources are still questionable. Many sources don't mention the subject and the ones that do are not reliable, like facebook and about.me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellsgood (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep.(non-admin closure)Dwaipayan (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Moniruzzaman[edit]

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

Not notable and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Banglapedia entry is quite extensive, and even if one cannot depend on that, I have found enough references to various of his works to convince me he was a prolific, if nothing else. Stubify if necessary, but I think it should be kept. Brianyoumans (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

And through WP:INDAFD: Mohammad Moniruzzaman

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

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

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

Keep a little research shows this Bangladeshi individual appears notable enough (even if only to India) to be worthy of inclusion here. Since he died 4 years ago, this is not a BLP violation, and it seems he has made his mark. I question the wisdom of rushing an article to AFD hours after it was contributed without at least tagging it for editorial attention and giving its author an opportunity to address issues. It also seems this man was a Shibir district unit president.[5] Sorry... but how could the nominator not have looked first? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. per Schmidt and Brianyoumans. Drive by AfD tag by Tamravidhir on a newly created stub. Nominator should do at least a quick search before bugging other editors with needless AfDs. – nafSadh did say 00:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chhutir Ghonta[edit]

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

Not notable and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: Brand new stub article sent to AFD without even tagging for editorial attention. Are we somehow in a hurry? Pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source, but that difficulty does not make a part of Bengali cinematic history automatically non-notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable film released in 1980, found this source which is quite extensive.--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suitable stub that meets WP:NF through winning an award at the national level. source as translated from Bengali Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Thanks go to Kmzayeem and MichaelQSchmidt for finding/adding a source. However, the web site (even the untranslated version) is barely functional, with most menu choices not working. There's no evidence this site has a reputation for fact checking -- or that it does any fact checking at all. A Facebook page with the same name is even worse. Hence, a claim to a national award isn't certain. However, given the difficulty of finding information for older Indian films, I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above comments. Jethwarp (talk) 02:19, 11 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 Sulby, Isle of Man. MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sulby Bridge[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Hall. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sulby, Isle of Man. Mjroots (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Guedioura[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Murry1975 (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played fully professional - so the subject fails WP:GNG WP:NFOOTY
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) 15:11, 5 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) 16:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He did not play in a fully professional league as required by WP:NFOOTY. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A simple count of votes might have led to a "no consensus" close. However, in terms of policy based arguments, I am calling this one for the delete camp. References to McGreevy were presented, but as Sionk pointed out, mere mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. It can demonstrably be shown by the article references that McGreevy took part in some public exhibitions, but again this is insufficient to demonstrate notability and this was pointed out by several participants in the debate. An artist exhibiting her work is essentially just the job description of an artist. In the same way, we do not accept that scholarly publications are evidence of the notability of the publishing scholar, that is just the expected activity of academics and researchers, whether notable or not. Of the references in the article, the only one with substantial coverage appears to have been written by McGreevy herself, so is not acceptable for notability.

Of the other sources suggested during the debate, the most promising were found by Lankiveil. It was indicated that there is an article in the defunct magazine Performance. However, insufficient information was given for others to locate this article. I have searched for it myself: there is an index of the magazine contents available online but I can find no mention of McGreevy anywhere from issues 32 to 37 (which I think covers the year 1985, given as the date). Lankiveil also mentioned a Sydney Morning Herald article, but McGreevy is not named in the title and no details were given of the actual article content. Without enough information being given for other editors to assess them for notability or to locate the articles themselves then this is not sufficient. If copies of these sources are found and they are shown to establish notability, I will happily restore the article.

The long discussion on the question of the lack of an obit I have pretty much discounted either way. The existence of an obit is evidence of notability. The lack of one means nothing at all. SpinningSpark 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Anne McGreevy[edit]

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

I found a website that mentions that she died about 5 days ago. And yet, I can't find any obituaries in any news publications. If a notable person dies, they are in the news, and here I see a complete absence of coverage. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is part of Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/ArtAndFeminism MCA October 2014. --99of9 (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article has been moved to Rose Ann McGreevy. PamD 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't make any claims of notability - probably should have been tagged as A7 rather than AfD. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 03:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't since my online searching indicated that a knowledgeable person would be able to find more sources and information about her - most of her career would have been pre-internet. Speedy deletion criteria allows me to nominate, but does not require it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: have expanded the article somewhat with refs to several exhibitions. She appears to be just about notable: please leave time for those more au fait with sculpture and the Australian arts scene to expand the article. PamD 09:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article content has since been expanded and referenced - please assume good faith and give the contributors a chance to flesh out the article with further details -- Chuq (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article may not be filled with content or many sources (yet), but sources showing notability look to be widely available. A simple search (see here) reveals that she's referenced in many books. Notability is not dependent upon an article saying "It's notable because..." or by a lack of an article's references to sources proving notability. Notability is dependent upon sources being available (see WP:NRVE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs)
Delete. We need more than she is a sculptor who has had work in exhibitions. I can't see anything remarkable to distinguish this artist above thousands of others. Notability is yet to be established. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:ARTIST. There are no significant awards, notable works, innovative techniques or anything else associated with notability. WWGB (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep, it appears that an exhibition by McGreevy received a substantial critical review in the 1985 edition of "Performance Magazine". It certainly appears reliable enough to contribute to WP:N to my inexpert eyes. More generally speaking, I think that given that McGreevy's career fell in the "dark zone" between when coverage is in the public domain and when coverage started to appear on the Internet. It is therefore not surprising that a Google search doesn't turn much up, but it's not particularly surprising either. I propose to wait six months while those editing the page find better sources, hopefully without being mauled by more seasoned editors, and we re-assess the article then. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I've had a look on Factiva now that I have a bit more time, and turned up an additional dead tree era source that doesn't seem to be online:
  - Saurin, Jo (18 January 1991). "CORROSION, NATURE AND HUMOUR IN COHESION". Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax. p. 16.
- There is also this file at the State Library of Victoria concerning this person, which might contain relevant items, not being in Melbourne I don't have easy access however. I am increasingly convinced the sources are out there though! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Question If this person is really a notable sculptur, then why hasn't anyone in the media noticed that she died 10 days ago? Notable people get articles in newspapers when they die, and here all I see is a post on vimeo. If she was notable, why does no one in the media care that she just died? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. I'm very doubtful about the notability of this person - there is certainly not the wealth of references suggested above. Deb (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete onthe basis we don't write articles about every artist that makes art.We need to see significant news coverage/reviews/awards etc. According to the info so far gathered she has contributed to a couple of group exhibitions and, as the nominator says, her passing does not seem to have been covered by the media. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy The nomination was unnecessarily rushed; I agree that we should give the author some more time to work on the article. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, considering it makes no claims to notability it would have been justified for speedy deletion, let alone AfD. If there's some claim to noteworthiness, an author has at least to include it. No-one yet has come up with evidence of her notability (brief mentions in a Google search hardly count). Sionk (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sionk:Comments like these scare the crap out of me. Do people really think that this article is speedy deletable? I mean, if so, just imagine the massive volume of worthy stubs that are getting deleted. Speedy deletion is very limited for good reason. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Australian artist who has exhibited in four group shows. Are you seriously saying that is a claim to notability? In that case, any professional who does their job would be notable. Sionk (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:SIGNIFICANCE - A claim to notability is not required to avoid speedy deletion, only a credible claim of significance, which this article clearly has. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        And what claim is that, pray? Sionk (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you read the linked page? Number 4, 5 & 6 all apply here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Well it's pointless trading "did you read my comments" comments. A claim that an artist has exhibited in an art exhibition is not a claim of significance. It's what artists do. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 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, Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject is notable Article was just created! why is it flagged so quickly for deletion?--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it is new it does not mean it is exempt from deletion discussions. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 01:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And assertions of notability without rationale or justification are unhelpful to a deletion discussion. WWGB (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain, but what I am certain about is that the failure to find an obit (presumably this means failure to find an obit in Google) 10 days after a person's death is not proof of non-notability. The only places that publish obits that quickly are newspapers, and they tend to publish only for those famous, or well=known political or entertainment or sports personalities. Probably 95% of the bios in WP do not have an obit in 10 days. Where I';d expect an obit is in an Arts magazine or the like, and these are usually published ,only at best, and might perfectly appear a year or two later, or longer. The time distribution would be an interesting research project. But failure to find sources in Google is not proof of non-notabillity for any type of source whatsoever for any subject whatsoever, , except for people or other subjects in the types of fields which would certainly have them. Even if there is never of obit accessible online, it doesn't prove anything; we are not limited to on-line sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Note: I've submitted an 'ask a librarian' enquiry to the National Library asking if they can identify any obituaries (or equivalent) in popular or industry-press. Any sources they can identify should be able to refute (or indeed validate) the deletion nomination. Therefore, please wait for a few days until their response returns. Sincerely, Witty lama 14:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a response from the NLA:

"I'm afraid that I was unable to find any obituaries written for the artist Rose Ann McGreevy in the popular press. I consulted the following (hard copy) newspaper issues:
Sydney Morning Herald 21-25 October; Daily Telegraph 21-24 October; Sun Herald 26 October; Australian 21-24 October; Weekend Australian 25-26.
Obituaries in specialist or industry publications may take longer to be published than those in the popular press. For example, I also consulted all 2014 issues of Art Monthly Australia (included in the Informit Literature and Culture Collection database, which can be accessed by registered Library users from home), and found that, in each issue, obituaries were published 2 - 5 months after the subject's death. For example, if an artist died in November 2013, their obituary might appear in the April 2014 issue; if an artist died in June 2014, their obituary might be published in the September issue.

Finally, for your interest, it could be noted in the Wikipedia article that Rose Ann McGreevy published a book (of which the National Library holds the only copy). Details of the book are available at http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn5151268 The book contains images of McGreevy's works from selected shows in 2000-1010."

I hope this provides useful insight into this deletion debate and I suggest that it might be worthwhile using the Ask A Librarian when other Australia-related deletion debates come up that could use the help of the dedicated reference librarian team at the NLA :-) Witty lama 21:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Unfortunately at the moment none of the four sources satisfy the General Notability Guidelines. Certainly no independent secondary sources that discuss the subject in detail. We need two of these. Am happy to change to keep if two can be found. (If they are found feel free to ping me). -- Shudde ^talk 22:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep — The references that folks have found suggest that this person makes it past the notability threshold. I just don't don't buy the obituary litmus test for the reasons that DGG raised: (a) obituaries may in fact be forthcoming in non-newspapers and (b) WP:NOTABILITY simply doesn't mean that you need obituaries written about you! Obituary or not, the fact the subject has died means that some of the concerns with WP:BLPs in general no longer apply here the normal risks and cautiousness we take in those cases can be relaxed. —mako ๛ 18:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note NB WP:EDITATAFD says this note should be at the top and also at the end, so please add new material above it and not below. This article has been moved to Rose Ann McGreevy. PamD 05:33, 27 October 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 Prothom Kadam Phool. MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kon Se Alor Swapno Niye[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Shri Shri Bhojo Hori Manna[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool per @MichaelQSchmidt's rationale. Quis separabit? 03:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool. MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Shahar Theke Aaro Onek Dure[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saajan. MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dekha Hai Pehli Baar[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saajan. MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tum Se Milne Ki Tamanna Hain[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured.

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 Saajan. MBisanz ^talk 12:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mera Dil Bhi Kitna Paagal Hain[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saajan. MBisanz ^talk 12:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bahut Pyaar Karte Hain (female)[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saajan. MBisanz ^talk 12:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiye To Jiye Kaise[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saajan. MBisanz ^talk 12:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pehli Baar Mile Hain[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Satte Pe Satta. MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbar Mere[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Satte Pe Satta. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Satte Pe Satta. MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jhuka Ke Sar Ko Poochho[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Satte Pe Satta. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured.

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 Satte Pe Satta. MBisanz ^talk 12:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zindagi Milke Bitayenge[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Satte Pe Satta. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with kudos to Lugnuts. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chandranath[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: Brand new stub article sent to AFD without even tagging for editorial attention. Are we somehow in a hurry? Pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source, but that difficulty does not make a part of Bengali cinematic history automatically non-notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this within seconds with a basic Google search showing that one of the lead actors won a major award for being in this film. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lugnuts's due diligence is appreciated. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shukhe Thako[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: Brand new stub article sent to AFD just hours after creation without even allowing a new editor to address issues. The film is verifiable as existing, and pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source, but that difficulty does not make a part of Bengali cinematic history automatically non-notable. Are we is such a hurry to send new contributors away? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've done my digging, and suspect the author may have given us an incorrect spelling of the title. I was able to find it listed as among the works of notable actor Abdur Razzak, but as titled here, was unable to find more. I'm willing to give up on this one. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:47, 8 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. G3 - obvious hoax Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph "808" Derivé[edit]

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

It's all fake - I can't find any sources to support any of the claims at Joseph "808" Derivé, and I can find sources to refute some. For example, this person is claimed to be the producer of Bad Boys (Alexandra Burke song) (actually produced by The Phantom Boyz) and Loud (Rihanna album) (multiple producers, but not this guy). Some of the works mentioned have had their articles changed to say that Phines/808/Derivé is a producer, but there's no sourcing for it - see [6] [7]. There are lots of Google hits for Phines/808/Derivé but all look to be user-generated and I can find no proper sources. Neatsfoot (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hip Hop Rabbit Hole for further details including sockpuppetry and the connection to "Phines". Neatsfoot (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (NPASR) (Non-admin closure) Duonaut^{(talk | contribs)} 18:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IHeartRadio Fiesta Latina[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google only gives 94 unique hits on "iHeart Radio Fiesta Latina" and the 300k+ hits on "iHeartRadio Fiesta Latina" boils to to just 167 unique hits. Crystal boll with a smell of advertising. The Banner talk 10:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous references (added recently to article) meeting WP:GNG with more possible, major concert featuring well-known acts, will be played in a major venue -- The Forum -- with music broadcast throughout the nation. Closing administrator, possible animus between nominator and article's creator, which might explain this dubious nomination based on irrelevant criteria ("167 unique hits"); further reason to consider banning nominator from making AfDs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, now you are taking over the harassing campaign? It has nothing to do with the original author, I don't discriminate so i don't care about an authors name or perceived status. I only judge the article.
- Failing WP:GNG is a valid concern, finding just a few relevant hits of this never-held-before-concert too. The Banner talk 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. While the announcement of this event is less than a month old, this is getting covered by high quality sources Billboard, Music Times, L.A. Times, plus AXS a major ticket promoter and KFI, a major radio station owned by the promoter. Its a major event by a major promoter at a major venue featuring major stars. Even if this event were to turn into a complete bust, it would be irresponsible for wikipedia to fail to report on it. Trackinfo (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the subject has received multiple mentions in numerous non-primary or secondary reliable sources, none of them focus on the subject of this AfD as the primary topic of those sources. Furthermore, as an WP:EVENT, the subject of this AfD does not appear to yet meet WP:PERSISTENCE. Therefore, my opinion at this time is that it is too soon for this article to be created, and that this article should be incubated as a sandbox of the creator. If this article receives significant coverage many months after the event is over, than it could be said to meet persistence, and this article can then be recreated. As for the statement above "it would be irresponsible for wikipedia to fail to report on it.", I direct the user to WP:NOTNEWS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the event hasn't happened yet, it is basically a spin-off of the iHeartRadio Music Festival which happened a few months ago. Plus, there are already several references in the article that talk about the festival. Paul Badillo (talk) 06:59, 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, Biblio worm 03:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to iHeartRadio Music Festival, per WP:TOOSOON Hustlecat ^{do it!} 06:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hustlecat. I smell an advertising rat, and this event has not yet made it on its own (hasn't even happened yet) in a way that warrants an independent article. KDS4444^Talk 18:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Question: Based on the 7 day AfD clock, this debate is scheduled to close one day before the first concert takes place. The long term significance of this event is quite likely to be noted (or not noted) in the press coverage immediately following the event. Does it make sense to rush to judgement immediately before the event? Whichever way it goes, wouldn't it make sense to wait a few extra days for the press to report? Trackinfo (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be true: when the festival was clearly notable, there would have been no need for this question. The sources, mostly line up info, are not convincing about the notability of the festival. The Banner talk 19:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment 4; 3; 3 there is clearly no trend to decide. The sourcing of the significance of this specific event, exclusively through anticipatory press shows its importance on the coattails of the existing IHeart Radio Festival's success. The decision about this festival as a stand alone will come clearer following the event. I rescued the article on the contention that even in abysmal failure, a public attempt at a big event like this is notable. The article is not lacking for sources of coverage, it is lacking for discussion of the long term viability or repeatability of the festival into the future. When we can add that discussion of the results of the event, independent of its associated predecessor, that should change the Merge and Delete opinions. Trackinfo (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See this article^WebCite in the Los Angeles Times and this article^WebCite in Billboard for two well respected reliable sources that have provided detailed coverage of the subject. The article cites other sources that also provide detailed coverage of the subject.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iHeartRadio Fiesta Latina to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or incubate until after the event Looking at the references in the article, I see "will feature...", "lineup announced", "Fans who cannot attend the festival will be able to ..." More useful would be sources that said, "featured...", "lineup was...", "Fans unable to attend were able to ..." The event may or may not happen. The article is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER of a future event written in future tense, with sentences written for the purpose of being reworked. The article exposes the encyclopedia to the potential for being used as an advertising webhost. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good radio I often listen... but I don't think good for encyclopedia standalone article... maybe Merge fopr now... but must be aloud later if it's enough sourced. 41.190.36.250 (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep merged. The article in my opinion might have been speedy deleted as advertising as soon as it was published, except that it was written by a reliable editor , and I certainly am reluctant to do that now because of the extent of the prior discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 06:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Winter, Sr.[edit]

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

I prodded this with the following rationale, which I believe is still valid: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." The creator deprodded this with the edit summary of "Winter was one of the largest real estate speculators in New York City in the early 1900s". This is not related to any GNG/BIO guideline. He was a successful businessmen, but being rich is not enough to be notable (except the top billionaires). Rich businessmen must still generate coverage in other sources, and I am not seeing anything here outside a few passing mentions and paid notices such as obituaries. We are not an obituary host, nor a place to advertise a family business (which this article seems to try, given the final paragraph). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Hard to find sources since his grandson has the same name and is still a prominent real estate developer but there is coverage in the New Yorker but its behind a pay wall; [8]. Gbook hits include reasonable coverage in Supreme City: How Jazz Age Manhattan Gave Birth to Modern America, passing discussion in The Empire State Building: The Making of a Landmark and United States Jewry, 1776-1985, Volumes 1-2, a few passing mentions in several other books not worth linking. Seems to have extensive coverage in The National Jewish Monthly but I can't read most of it. Obituary in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. JTdale ^Talk 16:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced. Notable real estate magnate.ShulMaven (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the author. There are 577 articles referencing Benjamin WInter in the New York Times archives nearly all of them from the 1920s, the 1930s, and 1940s and applying to the aforementioned. *New York Times archives: Benjamin Winter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patapsco913 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Patapsco913, a lot of those links are local news or passing mentions—what articles in specific are you looking at? czar ♔ 00:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar,The New York Times articles are all abstracts so we do not have the full content of the article. Here is one here with the New York Times stating: "Benjamin Winter, one of the largest and most active real estate operators during the boom days in Manhattan". *New York Times: "HOTEL HERMITAGE BOUGHT BY WINTER; Parcel Adjoining Seventh Av. and Forty-second St. Sold by Greenwich Savings Bank. MORTGAGE AT 4% GIVEN Times Square Neighborhood on Upward Trend, With Many Improvements Under Way" March 15, 1933].Patapsco913 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask mainly because I can access these articles. If you're making a case for the subject's notability, simply having a name show up in search proves very little. Many of the articles about him (if it is indeed him) are very brief—tough to tell what's about him and what's about his company, and where Jr. fits into all this. As for whether the guy was actually well known, I don't know. These are just little listings and reports of buildings that were bought/sold. Right now the article looks like it has been refbombed—lots of links to headlines but no indication whether those headlines have any substantive content because they haven't been checked. Find any major biographical stuff on him? czar ♔ 01:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer, article should be moved to drop the "Sr." when this is over, as its common name czar ♔ 01:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eh, I'd close this myself at this point, though I think the case is weak without saying the following: I can confirm the New Yorker mention above—it's a several-column spread across pages 12 and 13 about Winter's life and business. As for the NYT mentions, they're these really small paragraphs and I imagine they're from a briefs section of some sort, though I can't see them in situ. All in all, there's enough to write a full article about this man, his eponymous company, and their activities, so it's fine by significant coverage. If you're planning to work on the article, let me know and I can pass along some of the sources for you. czar ♔ 02:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you add those sources to the article as external links or further reading? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of the little ones, if that's what you mean, and accessible only behind a paywall (ProQuest). Similarly, the New Yorker piece is in their paywalled archives czar ♔ 03:19, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Society Ambassador[edit]

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

Non notable society position, borders on advertising Gbawden (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 12:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRNH[edit]

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

Notability not established within the article. Provided references do not assert notability. Purported awards are not shown to be sufficient to meet GNG. C 679 12:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve; their reconstruction of the Reduta Theatre won awards such as Building of the Year (2006) or Grand Prix of the Society of Czech Architects - National Architecture Award (2006) [9] (Czech Radio), Archiweb, [10] (Lidové noviny) etc. DRNH designed other important projects in Brno, such as Moravian Gallery [11] (Deník). The references are in Czech but they are reliable and independent. I'll try to improve the article - it is a very interesting topic. I know their work closely and I consider it excellent :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:58, 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, czar ♔ 07:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keepat present the notability has to be induced from the major buildings undertaken, by the limited amount of prizes,and the very limited amount of critical work about them Even a single serious monpgraphic length discussion of their work as a while would be very helpful, there;s enough already here to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Lehman[edit]

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

Only thing showing he probably exists is a Google Books page that doesn't show the relevant bits. Doesn't seem notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:POLITICIAN criteria 1: members of regional legislature are automatically notable. He existed, he was elected, so this substub stays. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a former state rep, the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. A quick Google newspaper archive search can confirm that the subject held the office.[12] • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't realized politicians were inherently notable. That's pretty weird. But rules are rules. I guess this is settled. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it isn't that weird — if we had a rule that some members of a state legislature could be considered notable but others couldn't, we'd be locking ourselves into an unresolvable bias war about how to decide which ones were notable enough (e.g. "delete all [Democrats/Republicans/Tea Partiers/third party fringers/etc.] because I hate their ideology".) So while referencing improvements are certainly needed, the only purely objective standards we can use are that either all state legislators are notable, or no state legislators are ever notable — and that latter one definitely isn't going to happen. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. Though "Evidence of ever doing anything that had any effect on anyone" wouldn't be such a bad height for the bar. That's an issue for another place. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing and content improvements are definitely needed here, but a person who has served in a state legislature always qualifies under WP:NPOL. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of a state legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haldane Rodger Cram[edit]

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

I don't see the notability here, nor have I been able to dig anything up about him. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Also, there may be a bit of WP:COI, since the creator is User:Doncram. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems a violation of WP:GNG and WP:MEMORIAL. A passing mention in an academic journal is not sufficient to establish notability. And that's assuming this is not a hoax, as I cannot find the reference ("A changing of the guard: regional planning in Ottawa, 1944-1974") mentioned anywhere on the web outside of this very article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to deletion, from creator of article (a really long time ago). --do ncr am 15:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since it doesn't appear that anyone other than Doncram made any significant edits, it now qualifes for speedy deletion per G7. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Astley[edit]

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

WP:NMOTORSPORT. Cybervoron (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate was not transcluded to the daily logs. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 27. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference is a niche site - fails WP:GNG as written, and I have no reason to doubt the nom's assessment that it fails the more detailed WP:NMOTORSPORT too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Randykitty per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Custom made shoes[edit]

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

Seems to be advertising. Eman235/talk 06:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article includes external links in the body of the article to at least two commercial websites for custom shoemakers. It was created as the only edit by a new account carrying the name of one of those companies. It is an entirely promotional article, and there is nothing worth salvaging here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is even a call-to-action in the text of a link that points to the website of the product. The title of the article is a "transactional" expression searched by potential customers in Google or other search engines. This is a blatant example of an advertisement page. I would suggest a speedy deletion. LowLevel73^(talk) 07:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional, non-encyclopaedic text. The Shoemaking and Last articles already cover any non-commercial content here. As per preceding comments I'm going to add a CSD G11. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Nomani[edit]

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

I don't know if this is a notable Qur'an reciter. It's fairly vanity heavy but I can't really find reliable sources about him. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This BLP has no independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellsgood (talk • contribs) 22:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is notable among the younger, upper class, more wired demographic in Muslim countries though this is due to Youtube videos and audio recordings passed around. There is no wide coverage of the actual man himself in any news media, at least not as of 2014. The WP:GNG isn't satisfied in this case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LingQ[edit]

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

The business and product do not appear to be notable. A notability template was placed in June 2013, while a page about the product's creator, Steve Kaufmann, was deleted in 2009 after the corresponding notification. Notices have been placed on the Talk pages of the page's creator, as well as the creator of the Kaufmann page, so hopefully they can contribute.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing enough coverage to justify keeping this; the only good source is Ottawa Citizen and I don't think one good source is enough. Ping me if more good sources are found and I'll reconsider my vote. Talk page identifies major COI issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I propose the community to looks through the sources of this old stub: User:Vincent Pace/sandbox/Steve Kaufmann. Though they didn't show the notability of the person, it may be different with the notability of the project - some of them may also be simply used to improve the quality of the article. I will look for further sources that could show what Wikipedia:Notability (software) requires. LingQ is a pioneer in a new branch of software, as the existence of both Open Source and proprietary clones shows. Therefore I would like to Keep the article --eugrus (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My further detailed position is now as following: LingQ is software discussed in reliable reviews, written by independent authors, and discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. Each of these criteria alone is enough under the Wikipedia notability guidelines for software. Here is the list of sources confirming notability as stated hereinbefore:

I am not opposed to the retention of this article on Wikipedia, but I concede that I have been influenced by the elance comment on the Talk page—I therefore cannot help but be wary when I encounter fervent interest, such as that displayed by eugrus (talk), in regard to this article. Other copyeditors will note from the PC Mag article that LingQ is actually a retail product, so the owner of the software stands to financially gain from any kind of publicity, including that which is garnered through Wikipedia. If anyone can address this matter, that would be helpful I think. Furthermore, a Talk item remains outstanding: can you respond to it Eugrus? Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to the "fervent interest", my connection with LingQ.com is limited to that of a paying (subscription-) user. In other words, it's the same as the one with Skype or Evernote. I'don't think it makes my associated with these products in a way that would not allow me editing Wikipedia articles about them. On the other hand I share the condemnation of the commission of the original article (no segment of the original edition except the introduction is shared with the current version) and would support the inspection of the articles written by User:EagerToddler39 to find out whether or not it's the first article this user created on commission.
But then I don't see how the "issue" with references pointed out on the talk page is relevant to the discussion on this deletion: you seem to think that every single reference in the article should serve to show its notability. In fact, their role is to confirm statements within the article. The list of sources confirming notability is the one you see above in this discussion. And especially since there is no statement on how many languages Steve Kaufman speaks in the Wikipedia article on LingQ, I don't understand why would you even seek for this number (a number changing every year lately, so that every single indication in press had probably been correct at that time; I think it's 14 now). --eugrus (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello eugrus (talk). You do understand that changing the content from the original article is meaningless—the reason why someone like this would pay a copyeditor for a Wikipedia article is not because they couldn't write it themselves, but because they needed someone who could ensure that the article did not get removed? Does this makes sense? Just by having a LingQ Wikipedia page, a person stands to gain from the mere exposure, regardless of what the content is like. And, as a paying customer, would it be fair to presume that you have had contact with Kaufmann, either directly or indirectly? Maybe his son? Also, I do not believe killerstartups.com is a reputable website—one just needs to review the link you posted to see that it is not subject to any set of standards. Anyhow, it would be great to read other perspectives. Thanks again, --Soulparadox (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no sources in the article for the effect it might have or the extent of widespread adoption , . Consewuently. it remains a clever ideas =that might become notable some day. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 10 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 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shift Theory[edit]

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

Here follows the result of my investigation. The topic of the article is a recently invented way to analyze FOREX data, named "Shift Theory" by its inventor. The same name and the more specific expression "Shift Theory Ratios" are used also to market a software product that implements such kind of analysis, which is sold through the official website. All the references that I've found online, mentioning "Shift Theory" and "Shift Theory Ratios" and related to the FOREX field are extremely new. An advanced search with Google shows that all the citations of the expression "shift theory" before June 2014 were not associated with FOREX or with financial analyses.[13] In other words, the two expressions are WP:NEO. The only two web references in the article are primary sources because they point to the official website of the product.[14] The article includes a reference to a book published in 1998 which, of course, has nothing to do with the topic but that contains accidentally the expression "Shift Theory" used in an unrelated context.[15] All the hints point to a recently invented non-notable software and to a promotional activity. LowLevel73^(talk) 04:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 98 % original research, combined with 1 % spam and 1 % coat-racking for the spam. As LowLevel73 points out, the only real citation is irrelevant. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To he extent that I understand it , it seems to be OR. DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 10 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 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redstar2000[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Google returns 81 results on "Redstar2000". None of the given sources are reliable sources. All are from within the Marxist community. While he may be well known in the limited context of the Marxist community, he has zero notability outside of that community. First AfD would almost certain ended in delete had anybody ever bothered to close and decide it ten years ago. Delete for lack of demonstrated notability. Safiel (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor Marxist/anarchist figure who fails WP:POLITICIAN and the General notability guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually all of the sourcing here is of the primary variety, with little to no reliable source coverage to confer notability under any of our inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even a message board conversation is cited in this article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to add from what has been stated above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alameda Pendragon[edit]

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

Article about a fictional character by a non notable author in a non notable work of fiction. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even a quick Google search reports only a handful of results and all of them come from the only primary source. LowLevel73^(talk) 03:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish the author well, but I can't see where this character is ultimately notable enough for an article. For that matter, I can't see where McKenzie's Wattpad work as a whole has received coverage to where it'd warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree completely with the nominator and the two editors commenting. Both the character and the fictional work are utterly non-notable at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:Acroterion as WP:A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesie's Grab and Go[edit]

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

Is this shop note worthy? Why? Rfsjim (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination at any time. Deor (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ward[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a television journalist, with serious advertorial overtones ("interviewing expertise was finely honed", "won her great acclaim") and sourced only to her promotional bio on her own employer's website (an invalid WP:PRIMARYSOURCE that cannot confer notability.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if this can be written and sourced properly, but she's not entitled to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. It says, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." The bio by CTV does not fit this definition. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the guideline's text doesn't cover every possible permutation of a primary source, a corporate bio of a person employed by that corporation is a clearcut case of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, as Bearcat has stated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your response misidentifies a core content policy as a guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleared up the BLP sourcing concerns, and tone problem. Notability was shown at the previous AfD. Please withdraw your nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you haven't "cleared up" the sourcing concerns at all — all you did is replace one primary source link with a different URL for the same primary source, so nothing has actually changed. And as for the previous AFD, firstly it was closed as "no consensus" rather than "keep" — and secondly, consensus can change, so any article on Wikipedia can be renominated at any time if there are valid reasons to revisit it, even if it has been kept at AFD in the past. Our referencing and inclusion standards have changed a lot since this article was first created in 2006 — a lot of things that were considered acceptable back then aren't anymore (or were never actually acceptable but just somehow slipped through the cracks). So, while I'm always willing to withdraw a nomination if the concerns that I expressed are properly dealt with, so far the problems with this haven't been adequately addressed. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I "cleared up the BLP sourcing concerns". You say that I "haven't 'cleared up' the sourcing concerns at all". It may only be one source, but it is a WP:RS and all material in the article is WP:V verifiable. What else is there in WP:BLP that you think needs attention? Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You stated in the nomination that the article had "serious advertorial overtones" (wikilinked to a disambiguation page). I stated that I had cleared up the tone problem. Do you agree that your concerns about a "serious advertorial overtones" are gone? Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that the article is written and sourced properly? Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article currently sourced properly? No, because the only source is Ward's employer -- which means the source is not independent, and should be viewed as biased. That calls into questions all statements except the basic ones about her employment at CTV. For example, the claim about two Emmys (upon which her notability might hinge) should be independently sourced. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:V states, "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral." The content guideline WP:IRS states, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." As far as I know, CTV is a professional national news organization and a WP:RS. Do you have information to the contrary? Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it's only an essay, see WP:IS. I believe many people subscribe to it. Under the list of non-independent sources for a person: "Person, family members, friends, employer, employees". [edited to add: or the even more famous essay WP:42] --Larry/Traveling_Man(talk) 05:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm one of the authors of the current version of WP:42. The first three words are (emphasis added) "We generally require..." Below in the notes, it says, "*This is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; please defer to such in a case of inconsistency with this page." Below that is a link to an essay named, "WP:Don't cite WP42 at AfD". WP:42 is focused on WP:GNG notability and is hopefully helpful for newbies; but WP:N does not require WP:GNG, WP:IRS does not require independence, and articles do not require sourcing to prove that they meet any form of WP:N. The content requirement missing in this article is at WP:V#Notability, which requires one source, although this issue is rarely mentioned at AfD. I continue to maintain that the material in this article is properly sourced to a WP:RS and has no WP:BLP issues. wp:notability is a separate discussion. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I missed that. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if we can get agreement on those points for now. Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is going to take me more time to form an opinion, but here are some initial comments:
- The previous Afd in 2009 did not find that Jennifer Ward was notable. Rather, there was no consensus.
- From what I've found so far, she doesn't meet general notability guidelines. This article has one reference -- which cannot be used to determine general notability, since it's a bio for her at the place where she works, and thus not an independent source.
- WP:CREATIVE says it includes journalists. She doesn't qualify based on the first three cirteria. Criterion #4 is another story: "The person's work (or works)...(c) has won significant critical attention...". According to the listed reference[16], "she won two Emmy Awards as the reporter/host for her stories on school violence and medical news." This leads to two issues: (1) does this lesser known category of Emmy's count as significant critical attention; (2) is there a reliable, independent source for this (the specified source employs her, so it's not independent)? The EMMY online source [17] doesn't seem to list awards going back far enough. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article that Tchaliburton found names one of the two and identifies the awards as regional. Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-OK to ask Wikiproject?. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see a reference to what two awards were won: national; regional; to a large group of people? Here's what I'd like to ask a Wikiproject:

The person in question has won two News Emmy's. I don't know which two, and the only online source I know of [18] only goes back to 2000; these Emmys were won in the 1990's. My questions:

(1) Does the winning of any national News Emmy indicate notability? Sometimes a single award goes to a large group of people (I see one case of over 30 people listed).

(2) How about a regional Emmy?

If there's already consensus on this, could someone point me in the right direction? Otherwise, does anyone consider it canvassing if I ask at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I think that CTV can be trusted as a reliable source. But in any case, here is another reference that mentions her Emmy win. I believe this is sufficient for WP:Creative. It does need to be cleaned up, but AFD is not cleanup. Here are some references that may help: 1, 2, 3. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added one of your references and used it to determine the birthyear(s). Anymore "cleanup" concerns? Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a person has a profile on the corporate website of the company they work for is not, in and of itself, evidence that they belong in an encyclopedia. CTV's news coverage is certainly a solid source in many other contexts, but its own marketing profiles of its own staff are primary sources which cannot grant notability. You're on the right track in your attempts to track down additional sourcing, but the article couldn't be kept if the CTV profile was its only source. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that the CTV reference conveys notability, just that I think the facts can be taken as accurate. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 16:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long career as a nationally-known personality, with international references. Article satisfies all core content policies. Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jennifer Ward won two Mid-Atlantic Emmy awards during her stint at WTXF-Fox Philadelphia. The first was in 1998 for Outstanding Health & Science News/Series - "Maverick Medicine".[19] and the second was as a host of "Violence in Our Schools" in 1999,[20] which won Outstanding Talk Program/One Time Only Special. Whether regional Emmys count as "significant critical attention" (WP:CREATIVE #4c) is debatable. Fuebaey (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons Unscintillating gave.ShulMaven (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't think it's debatable: regional Emmys should not be considered major, significant awards, simply because they happen to share the name Emmy with other awards which are. I can't find the independent notable coverage that Bearcat rights asks for. And despite having been a host on CTV's news network and the morning show Canada AM for "14 years," she doesn't seem to have any national award during that all time: no Geminis, Canadian Screen Awards, ACTRA Awards, nothing -- which does not bolster the case that she meets WP:CREATIVE. Delete, at least until such time as she gains some notable distinction that would satisfy WP:CREATIVE or gets the sort of independent coverage that WP:BASIC calls for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. See my detailed comments above. Ignoring awards for the moment, I don't see that she has garnered significant in-depth coverage. Now, back to those awards. I'm a little leery of accepting regional awards as proof of notability. Her awards don't seem to have gotten much attention outside of the area. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. even with the added sources, she appears to be of minor regional notability only. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 06:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get very concerned when I see references to web sites such as odssf.com which have an "About us" page that says absolutely nothing about them. This leads me to believe that they are not reliable sources of information but are only a collection of user-generated content without editorial oversight. I am also concerned that the description of her as it now stands in the article here suggests that she has received the same Emmy awards that are given to national newscasters— according to what appears above, this is misleading at best and deceitful at worst. In the end, the whole thing starts to smack of desperation. It seems like assessing the notability of someone whom others have suggested is clearly notable should not be so very difficult. And if it is difficult, then the person in question is probably not notable. KDS4444^Talk 18:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are two other sources not mentioned in the discussion (the first provides significant coverage, the second provides two sentences):
1. Chapman, Francesca (1991-06-26). "Kyw Imports Canadian Anchor Hire Is The Latest Move At City's 3rd-place Station". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
2. Zerbisias, Antonia (1991-06-18). "This day, Alison Smith moves on". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15. Anchors Away: CFTO's Jennifer Ward had a big send-off last Friday after anchoring her last Newsbeat Today. As tipped here, Ward has landed a juicy, six-figure job at NBC's KYW-TV in Philadelphia
In addition to Tchaliburton (talk · contribs)'s sources (1^WebCite, 2^WebCite, 3^WebCite) and Unscintillating (talk · contribs)'s good work on the article, this should be kept.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jennifer Ward to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:10, 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 redirect to Love lock#Notable locations and controversies. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations with love locks[edit]

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

I don't see the point in this article, as this practise is virtually ubiquitous now. It might as well be called "List of pedestrian bridges" as far as I'm concerned. EditorInTheRye (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could probably do with some cleanup but it seems like a suprisingly worthwhile article. Artw (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Love lock#Notable locations and controversies. It seems best to confine the matter there as these items are actually ephemeral as they are subject to purges by the authorities and we don't have adequate sourcing to track this. Andrew (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love lock#Notable locations and controversies. Literally every bridge, fence or gate on the planet could potentially end up mentioned in this article. Even if we limit this to places that got media coverage for having love locks, there would still likely be a massive number of places listed. Having this as a standalone list will easily violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is inherently unencyclopedic, although redirecting to a section within the article that gives some of the more notable examples is appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lists of places with oddball characteristics is indiscriminate. What's next List of places with more bars than houses of worship and other such constructs? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Messerschmitt Me 334[edit]

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

No basis in fact other than the designation, everything else is complete nonsense Petebutt (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep and possibly pull more info/links from German WP. Artw (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Artw, aircraft types generally considered to be notable enough to sustain an article, subject to the usual guidelines. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - German Wikipedia has an authoritative paper ref, meets WP:N with that. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the nonsense and blatant copyvio. RE-written the complete article so the AfD can be closed.--Petebutt (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work. I would be in favour of an early close on the basis of this. Artw (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Nayar[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, - Only major role was The Story of Tracy Beaker,
Google News only brings up passing mentions - but If anything can be found I would be more than happy to withdraw, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent 10 minutes on google and I can't find any hint of notability. She doesn't appear to have starred in any tv show and appears here or there as a bit part actress. Szzuk (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to easily fail WP:NACTOR as described above. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entry but redirect the title to The Story of Tracy Beaker (TV series), because her name appears there as one of the stars. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no inherent objection to a redirect, but the consenus is to delete. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hackett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Architect from Northern Ireland, but all of the awards and achievements are attributable to the company Hackett Hall McKnight, of which he is one partner. True, Hackett Hall McKnight might be a notable company, but there is no coverage about Hackett individually. He has a slight profile because he writes for various publications. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF. Sionk (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear from the article he's not inherently notable. His work might render notability, but all the sources are web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I've created a Hackett Hall McKnight article if anyone wants to suggest a plausible redirect (though Hackett is no longer a partner). Sionk (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP is not WP:LINKEDIN.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a clear example of WP:RESUME. Fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Campbell (songwriter)[edit]

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

Some text is referenced, however, Jon Campbell lacks notability as only a few people will have heard of him. DrDevilFX (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable writer of novelty songs of only local interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 00:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG with no notability established by WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Daly[edit]

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

Lacks Notability Biography of Living Person Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Membership in the Royal Society of Canada seems to be enough to meet WP:PROF criterion 3. Jinkinson talk to me 00:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Authored several papers with hundreds of citations each. Extremely clear notability per WP:SCHOLAR. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Nom is reminded of WP:BEFORE. A quick look at WP:PROF shows that Daly meets this without any problem. EIC of a respected journal, president of a major society, etc. --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point it's a SNOW KEEP. He obviously passes WP:PROF for multiple reasons - membership in a society, number of citations, etc. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Please google before starting an AFD.ShulMaven (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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