< 3 November	5 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ovation Press[edit]

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

Company fails WP:CORPDEPTH (insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't even find much trivial coverage in reliable sources. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional - could have been speedied. Deb (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but a speedy was declined in 2007, so I just assumed bring it here. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neeru Khosla[edit]

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

This short biography seems to utterly fail Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ego Hunter (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Then find more background information and improve the article! I'll agree there isn't much there, and whilst we should clearly eat our own dog food, this article is about someone who is important to WMF so there should be good reasons why they were appointed to that advisory board. --AlisonW (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AlisonW, being a member of the WMF board of advisors is not a criterion for notability. I am certain that the decision to extend an invitation to the wife of one of the Sun Microsystems co-founders, and herself the co-founder of an open-source technology-based non-profit to be an advisor made good sense when the WMF was first moving to Southern California, and it's entirely possible that she has provided useful advice to the WMF Board of Trustees since that time. But these don't make for notability. Risker (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary or secondary reliable sources (1), [1], 3), therefore subject meets WP:GNG. If there are issues with the article, deletion shouldn't be the solution, see WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are almost no reliable sources specifically about Khosla; almost all of them are, at their core, about the foundation she co-founded. (While I think the foundation is notable, its own article reads like an advertisement.) The sources that RightCowLeftCost has identified (all three of them!) are one biography strongly focused on the foundation, and two articles in local newspapers with a significant focus on the foundation. Running a foundation does not make one notable. Risker (talk) 21:06, 1 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Although the majority of Neeru Khosla's work is with the CK-12 Foundation, she is part of other organizations, for example being a Wikipedia Advisor. So that may be a reason for a keep. However, I must agree with Risker that the few articles on Neeru is mostly about the foundation, and those sources are not particular notable neither. Therefore, I think a merge to the CK-12 foundation page, AND a clean up of said page should be the outcome of this discussion.
Keep — First and most importantly, Khosla has been the subject of many articles for her work on CK-12 and is a board member of many organizations including the Wikimedia Foundation which is a large and important organization. Although the articles about her may focus on her work, she falls clearly on the good side of the WP:INHERIT and the fact that she is known for her work need not mean that she be merged into the article about her organization. The article does not do a good job of establishing notability but should fix the article, not delete it.

Second, the nominator seems to have 30 minute total contribution history to Wikipedia that exclusively involved nominating visible Wikimedia leaders' biographies for deletion. That contribution history, the username and user page, seems to me like somebody it might be trying to make a WP:POINT. Full disclosure, I found this because they also nominated the biography about me in the same session. As far I know, I have ever met Khosla. —mako ๛ 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient sources to establish WP:GNG notability and this doesn't appear to be a policy-based nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sources about the foundation include significant amounts of detail about her instead of just being about the foundation; it looks like enough for an independent article. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BIO. Enough coverage of her in particular (whether or not the articles also talk about the organization, she is the profile/subject of a sufficient number of sources). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Star Urgent Care[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA and appears to function as WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources all seem to be press releases and the article does not attempt to establish any notability. Peter.C • talk • contribs 13:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several non-press release sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] Though these are all local newspapers, they are still reliable and so this seems to be enough to meet WP:CORP. Jinkinson talk to me 14:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete All those cites seem to be either "it exists" or "it's opening". But WP:CORP says existence does NOT equal notability; the company must be shown to have "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society..." To that end, there is an article that says that the urgent care centers have or will lessen the load at local emergency rooms. Is that enough? EBY (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Yeah, it isn't a high profile organization. But I believe anything we can write a sentence with two GNG-suitable sources for is worth keeping. I mean, why not have an article, at least a little one, for something like this? I should add that Jinkinson not only showed that there were multiple independent sources, but his third source mentioned a unique feature - listing current wait times for all their locations on their home page - which actually does have a significant effect on society. But that's an alternate criterion; the primary GNG is enough. Wnt (talk) 03:30, 30 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) 23:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jinkinson. This meets the bar. —mako ๛ 15:58, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 12:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo Institute of Research & Psychology[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a degree-awarding college, which are kept per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fixed most of the refs so it's now easier to grok the sources. They aren't terribly strong (all from a small number of newspapers) but it's still a degree-awarding college, AFAI can see. LaMona (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randox Laboratories[edit]

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

Article created by (indef-blocked) WP:SPA RandoxLabs (talk · contribs), with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes it is badly written and PROMO, but it meets notability: here, here, here. EBY (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs a lot of work, but is WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does meet WP:GNG, but it was very promotional, so I deleted two promotional sections lacking reliable sources. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:01, 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 keep. You are more than welcome to have a go at it without it needing to be deleted. There is no consensus to delete at this time. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bargain bin[edit]

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

Unsourced forever, WP:WORLDWIDE americanism, no attempt at refs, extremely US-centric. Delete it and let me have a go at making an article at Bargain basement, which redirects here. But it needs deleting regardless, this is just a personal opinio in the style of an WP:ESSAY, with no RS, no sod all. Si Trew (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold The article itself is poor but I don't think the underlying topic is. Why don't you rewrite it, rename it Bargain basement, and make this a redirect to your new and improved article? (I'm not quite going to oppose this nomination, but I don't think it's necessary.)01:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevelationDirect (talk • contribs)
Keep per RevelationDirect. MW [6] -- there should be enough material out there to build a proper article on this topic. It is already tagged as a stub for retailing. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per criteria 1. "The nominator... fails to advance an argument for deletion". It is clear from the nomination that the nominator believes this to be a notable subject, as they are proposing to write an article on the subject under a different title. There is an objection that the article is unsourced, but, as the nominator is proposing to write an article on the subject, he either knows there are sources or believes there to be sources. That those sources are not present right now is not a reason to delete. The other objections – reading too much like an essay (which I don't think it does), being "too American" – are content issues, not deletion issues. It's nowhere near WP:TNT territory. The nominator is free to FIXIT if he doesn't think it's written very well. The only "benefit" to the nominator's plan is to move the article from Bargain bin to Bargain basement without having to file a Requested Move. This seems an unnecessarily complex way to do an RM. Just do an RM. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:26, 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. Although Carrite's additions are impressive, if Bearcat wishes this to be closed as no consensus later on, I can change my close. But procedurally, this is a keep close. Wifione ^Message 15:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Marie Molloy[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Most sourcing is to blogs and self-published material, and the most significant recognition is by a non-notable organization. The only other recognition is from a local specialty publication. The article appears to be maintained by friends of the subject as an inside joke. The article’s subject ~~apparently edits this page and~~ encourages vandalism of the page, including adding false/defamatory content. Recommend delete and salt for both this and Parker Molloy. BruinsR4eva (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt as nominator. BruinsR4eva (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most significant recognition, Ms. Molloy's inclusion in the Trans 100, is not "non-notable." Trans 100 was covered by GLAAD, BuzzFeed, and The Advocate. Further, it is incorrect to state "most sourcing is to blogs and self-published material" - the lead notes her publication at a variety of sources:

Review of the alleged edits by Ms. Molloy indicate all are negative and refer to Ms. Molloy as a "troll" and vandalism such as: "Molloy also for some reason thinks that she is famous when in reality she writes grade school reading level articles for websites that no one reads. She also has little to no sense of humor and enjoys seeking out reasons to complain about non existent issues. At this point I'd say grow a pair but, too late." As such, it is reasonable to surmise that the individual with the username "ParkerMolloy" is not Ms. Molloy.

As the controversy section indicates, Ms. Molloy is frequently discussed in the LGBT press, including The Advocate, Queerty, Huffington Post, and others. She has been brought in as an expert by Dan Savage on several occasions to discuss transgender issues. As such, she does not fail WP:JOURNALIST; she meets qualifications 1, (maybe) 3, and 4.

Notice of COI: I sometimes Tweet at Ms. Molloy. On occasions she listens.
Emily Esque (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to provide to get her over one of our notability rules is sourcing in which she's the subject — sourcing in which she's the bylined author of an article or an opinion piece about something else might speak to the notability of the thing she's writing about (unless she's writing about herself, in which case it's a primary source), but it does not confer notability on her. If she's the author of the content, then yes, it is self-published (and therefore invalid) sourcing regardless of what platform or media outlet she happens to be writing it for — stuff she's written about herself would be acceptable for additional verification of facts after enough of the reliable kind of sourcing had been added to get her over our notability rules, but it cannot contribute to the process of getting her over our notability rules. To make her notable enough for a Wikipedia, you would need to cite a lot more media coverage, in which she is the subject of content being written by somebody else, than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but WP:NUKEANDPAVE pertains here. She might certainly qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but that's not what this version is — this relies entirely too much on sourcing in which she's the author, not the subject, of the reference, and that kind of sourcing counts for exactly nothing toward demonstrating that she's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Accordingly, it would be easier to restart from scratch than it would be to repair all the problems with this version. Delete, without prejudice against creation of a better version in the future. I'd also be willing to accept sandboxing in user or draft space so that it can be worked on, but it's not entitled to stay in articlespace in this form with this quality of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain the interpretation of notability. From my review of the article, the following sources reference Ms. Molloy as the subject, rather than as an author (COI - I added the Open Letter; I'm also a signatory):

Also, a quick Google turned up this from GLAAD, mentioning Ms. Molloy as a subject:

Author of "Transphobia is Perfectly Natural" asked to take a leave from ad agency

I understand that it takes more than an author writing about herself to be notable, but there is a rather substantial body of articles dedicated to talking about Ms. Molloy from a variety of LGBT publications. Emily Esque (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem being the necessity of rewriting the article to replace all the bad sourcing — which is why I suggested that it be sandboxed so that you and other interested editors have time to do that. But also Queerty, Freethoughtblogs, Blogspot and Boing Boing don't really count as reliable sources either, so you don't have as much of the good kind of sourcing yet as you thought you did. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have a good example of what a good WP page for a burgeoning journalist that has attained notability *should* look like?Emily Esque (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Journalists are notoriously hard to source out for GNG because rival publications don't tend to write about them and their own publications' writings are "self-sourced." That in mind, THIS piece on this pioneering transsexual activist and journalist from the Windy City Times clearly counts to GNG, while THIS from the Huffington Post and THIS from Queerty.com indicates status as public figure. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even removing Queerty, FTB, Blogspot, and BoingBoing, you still have several HuffPo articles, the Stranger, the Advocate, and GLAAD discussing the subject. Clearly meets WP:JOURNALIST 1, 3, 4. Emily Esque (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never let it be said that Emily Esque does not beat dead horses into paste. You asked for more sourcing, and by the heavens you shall have it. Additional sources referring to Molloy as subject:

Washington Post (re: Chelsea Manning)
The Week (re: transgender identity in general)
Autostraddle (re: transgender women being "born boys")
Salon (re: Piers Morgan's transphobic interview with Janet Mock)
Jezebel discussion of the HuffPostGay article which included a video of a parody of Molloy being shot in the head
An interview with Gothamist (regarding the Janet Mock and Grantland stories, among other things)
A panel of the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association, where Molloy participated as a panelist on transgender journalism
Her nomination as a finalist for the Los Angeles Press Club's National Arts and Entertainment Journalism awards for her work on drag culture and the use of the "t-word" (that inspired much of the "Controversies" section).

I do believe we can put this nomination for deletion to bed as factually inaccurate (Molloy does not edit this page) and incorrect (Molloy has clearly meets GNG guidelines and WP:JOURNALIST). Emily Esque (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response:

1. Bylines do not demonstrate notability. As Bearian said, blogging about notable people or for notable publications does not make a journalist notable.

2. Blogs and self-published sources do not demonstrate notability. EmilyEsque's first bulleted list is comprised of special-interest group blogs or publications:

Gay/transgendered

Queerty.com blog (4)
Huffington Post Gay Voices news aggregator/blog (2)
Advocate.com (1)
PlanetTransgender.blogspot.com (1)
Glaad.org self-published blog (1)

Not gay/transgendered - Parker Marie Molloy is mentioned but not primary subject

FreeThoughtBlogs.com – blog
TheStranger.com – website for free local alternative newspaper in Seattle
BoingBoing.net - blog

3. Passing mentions and references to bylines do not demonstrate notability. EmilyEsque's other bulleted list is comprised of these.

4. All recognition is from non-notable organizations:

The Trans 100 is not notable enough to have its own article. Also, one of the Queerty posts quotes Parker Marie apparently threatening the Trans 100 with "freezing them out of anything I ever write," after which she was added to that list.
The Los Angeles Press Club and its National Arts and Entertainment Journalism Awards are not notable enough to have their own articles.
Windy City Times' 30 Under 30 is not notable enough to have its own article, and except for notable country music singer Steve Grand, no other listee has a stand-alone Wikipedia article.

5. WP:BLP1E. The blog posts with "Parker Marie Molloy" or variants in the title seem to be about one controversy involving language. Parker Marie Molloy criticized RuPaul's language, but then she resigned from at least two writing jobs because others criticized her own language. Starting a fight with a notable person does not make someone notable.

6. The only time this person has been mentioned in a book is in her autobiography for Thought Catalog, a non-notable publisher. [7] Even Parker Marie Molloy describes Thought Catalog as “an open platform where (virtually) anyone can publish whatever they want.” [8] She seems to have resigned from there as well.

The original nomination has been amended because User:ParkerMolloy got blocked. Articles about people involved in one controversial topic often attract vandalism from detractors, but in this case even Parker Marie Molloy encourages friends to vandalize the page on her behalf. She even posts pictures of the vandalism she requested. This kind of disruption by non-notable people wastes everyone’s time and damages the project. Reiterate delete and salt vote. BruinsR4eva (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to Carrite's search for reliable sources turn up enough in-depth articles to establish WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:07, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nagai-Aida[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unaired, cancelled television project. Epically fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. Recreated after previous deletion at AfD. Delete and Salt. Safiel (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. A cancelled, unaired project is not notable. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Bluemask (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shelved, without ever gaining enough reliable coverage. The article's name is rather fitting, since there hasn't been any news since "a long time ago". Worse, I'm a Kapamilya (ABS-CBN fan), and I've been following Philippine television for years, yet I don't recall anything about this show. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. EoRdE6 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination, there is no indication of notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:13, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Weiler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject fails to meet notability guidelines. While the subject appears to meet sport specific criteria, Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) FAQ#2 states that the subject must still meet the general notability guidelines. The subject lacks "significant coverage". The article was created 6+ years ago and only has one reference, to a broken link, from the subject's University Athletics program and not his former professional team. Searching on Google fails to reveal significant coverage of the subject. Many sources briefly mention the subject, identifying participation in a game or the time at which a goal was scored. But articles with depth on the subject were not found. Additionally, many of those sources lack reliability or independence from the subject. Becky Sayles (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. This is not a player who played 10 mins, this is someone who spent three seasons as a professional making over 30 appearances. Needs improving to meet WP:GNG, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question @GiantSnowman:Have you found any sources? Notability requires verifiable evidence. All the search results here(newspapers) are routine coverage or unrelated. The results ten pages into Google yields only one result that resembles a reliable source that actually covers the subject. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Becky Sayles: - sources added, there are more out there, and a bunch on HighBeam which I can't access... Giant Snowman 18:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He hast played in a Fully professional league on many occasions therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NFOOTY, has played repeatedly in a fully professional league. Article needs expanding not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having played in the USL First Division, this player meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies notability requirements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Four of the above keep !votes only address WP:NFOOTY, which by itself is insufficient. WP:NSPORTS states that WP:GNG must still be met. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS opens by saying "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" (my emphasis), which is the case here. What is the problem? Giant Snowman 09:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To support GS's point, please see The Deletion Archive for a very long list of players kept or deleted on the basis of NFOOTY to support the notion that there is a long standing consensus that a significant career in a fully professional league is sufficient for the subject to be considered generally notable. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: Looking at the The Deletion Archive, among the AfDs that resulted in keep since September, it is not clear that NFOOTY alone is sufficient is the consensus. Jules Boykoff doesn't discuss NFOOTY. List of Persib Bandung is about a redirect and not notability. Kingsley Chigozie, Dimitrios Stefanakos, Fran O'Leary, and James Kiffe met both GNG and NFOOTY. Victor Ortiz GNG sources were found. Kenneth Dougall and Srdan Grahovac didn't discuss GNG sources. Only in Spencer Thompson is NFOOTY addressed as the appropriate standard. Becky Sayles (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Becky Sayles: - did you actually read the AFDs you have quoted directly above? Kingsley Chigozie doesn't mention GNG as a reason for keeping; Dimitrios Stefanakos also doesn't mention GNG as a reason for keeping; and James Kiffe has a majority of 'keep' !votes exclusively mentioning NFOOTBALL, with a handful mentioning both... Giant Snowman 20:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - As stated above, Kingsley Chigozie, Dimitrios Stefanakos, and James Kiffe met both GNG and NFOOTY, making them not relevant to the consensus issue addressed by Fenix down. The implication would require application of NFOOTY when GNG is not met, rather than when it is not mentioned. A !vote with one reason for support does not necessarily mean an absence of other reasons. ^[a] Becky Sayles (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further info - there is plenty of consensus at AFD where players who made only 1 appearance have been deleted (which I have supported!) - but that does not apply here, Weiler had a short-but-decent professional career. Giant Snowman 12:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS says more than that:

"This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such asWikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.(my emphasis)

Meeting NFOOTY means it is likely to meet the general notability guidelines, not that it does meet them.Becky Sayles (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Comment Two issues are dispositive in this Afd. One is the consensus, if it exists, about the sufficiency of NFOOTY alone vs GNG. The other, dependent on the first, is whether or not GNG is met here. The assumption made that NFOOTY alone is sufficient is incorrect because of the language of the guidelines as described above. It is also incorrect because Policy on Consensus states

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages.) Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others."

While my own brief look into the archive does not support the described local consensus, I assume that GiantSnowman's comments in Spencer Thompson are an accurate reflection of his experience. Unfortunately, here a subset of editors participating in football AfDs are asking to apply local consensus over the broader consensus established in applicable guidelines and policy. ^[b]

If policy is correctly applied, then GNG must be met. At the time of nomination, the article had only one reference [9] which is a routine athlete profile from a school athletics website that supports content in the article, but not notability of the subject. Four additional references have been added, but they too are limited. [10] and [11] are more routine profiles, only indicating team membership, and participation in games, with no depth of coverage. [12] and [13] are from the same source behind a paywall.^[c] Becky Sayles (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ In Chigozie, Pharaoh provides sources, and explicitly addresses GNG. NickG then !voted per Pharaoh. In Stefanakos Jogurney a greek article as "significant coverage in a reliable source" also explicitly mentioning GNG. And in Kiffe, GauchoDude identifies sources, and explicitly addresses meeting GNG, along with multiple other users who discuss GNG.
^ The appropriate way to handle such a change would be to discuss and edit the guidelines, rather than incorrectly apply them to AfDs.
^ Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ain Mosni[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article lacks reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom reasoning + I got irritated with the lead, it was too promotional and filled with false claims, will not mind a speedy deletion. Darreg (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and lacks WP:RS --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oosie[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is not a notable artist. Versace1608 (Talk) 20:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator's reasoning + There is hardly a notable Nigerian entertainer that I will not know. Darreg (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I realize foreign media outlets may have a reduced online presence, but there is no significant claim of notability in the article and only one reference to a dead link.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:ARTIST. Wikicology (talk) 09:23, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Merkin[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable film director, known for a possibly non-notable film. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His one film may be just marginally notable, but I think one marginal film is not enough. The sources here are not the type we usually want. The article reads more like a puff peace than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:25, 1 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 19:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to its very poor sourcing, this is essentially an unsourced BLP. The subject appears not even to have his own IMDB page. Producers and videographers are almost never notable because they are all so common. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Caprice[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources in the references. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no media coverage even in Czech largest tabloid. --Jklamo (talk) 01:27, 3 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 19:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. This sort of undersourced BLP needs to go away from Wikipedia as a class. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Sumarti Ningsih and Jesse Lorena[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This doesn't need to be here. It is a news story with little significance except for the higher level of news coverage it has garnered. Ksoth (talk) 16:50, 4 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 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It cannot be known that this event will not receive further coverage; however, as per my reasons that follows, this article should not be deleted in haste; WP:RAPID. It has diverse sources - many independent Hong Kong newspaper and television shows report on this event, and has gained enough notability to be reported on multiple UK newspapers, and international news networks such as Bloomberg, CBS News etc; WP:DIVERSE WP:GEOSCOPE. There are in-depth coverage, such as reactions from a victim's father, reported on the BBC, and comparisons between the death, and the novel and film ‘American Psycho’ are often made on different newspapers and on Twitter.

This article was created on the 3rd November, 2014, two days after the event, after there is evidence of consistent coverage. It was not breaking news. WP:BREAKING. It is also of historical significance because this type of murder is rare in Hong Kong.Kinkreet ^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not really matter if it will receive future news coverage. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It is a local new story (and this article reads as such) about (alleged) prostitutes being murdered, with no real significance beyond the fact that it is receiving news coverage, and just because it receives a high amount of news coverage close to the event occurrence does not mean it is a notable event. To be honest, in several years no one (besides people directly involved) will likely care about this new story. It does not mean it is "historically significant" because this type of even is rare in Hong Kong. It might be locally significant, and is therefore the place of media sources to report it as news. -- 17:51, 4 November 2014‎ Ksoth
  - Yes, Wikipedia is not a newspaper that records every news event. But this event is, IMHO, notable; and I have outlined my arguments above and will not repeat myself, I have based them upon standards set by the Wikipedia community. If you do not believe it is notable, please outline your arguments objectively - 'To be honest, in several years no one (besides people directly involved) will likely care about this new story.' is subjective.
    
    I understand that you do not believe this event warrants such widespread coverage, and I agree with you to a large extent; but the fact is, it is not your opinion or my opinion of whether this is important that matters, it is the general worldwide public's opinion that matters. The event is receiving a lot of persistent attention, and meets the notability guidelines, and thus the article should stay.
    
    We agree to disagree, and I hope this article do not get deleted, but if it does, please move it into my userspace, many thanks.Kinkreet ^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 20:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You point out that my statement is subjective, but in your own post use "IMHO", which is just as subjective. Plus your arguments are not valid. You used the tag WP:GEOSCOPE. Wikipedia defines this as "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." This incident has not, and likely will not, have a significant impact anywhere besides Hong Kong. Even then, it's effect in Hong Kong is unlikely to be significant. It has simply been a news story. Likewise, your use of the WP:DIVERSE tag doesn't support this article. This tag is defined with "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." All news stories regarding this event are the same. They detail what happened. There is no wide-ranging reporting. There are no "sides". There is no controversy. It is simply a news story that has been reported as news, so the multitude of sources should be discounted as diverse sources. Ksoth (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I pointed out that that specific statement is subjective. I have also given my opinion but have backed them up with arguments. I appreciate your time arguing against my points. Your rebuttal about how it doesn't follow WP:GEOSCOPE is again your opinion, worldwide coverage argues against you. As for your argument against WP:DIVERSE, "All news stories regarding this event are the same. They detail what happened.", that's what all news does, they report what happened. A notable event does not require controversy or 'sides', that is not part of the definition. This argument is therefore irrelevant and should not be used to discount those sources as not being diverse.Kinkreet ^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, my rebuttal regarding WP:GEOSCOPE is not an opinion. That tag requires the event have "significant impact", not significant reporting. Just because it is a sensational international news story does not mean it has had a significant impact in those regions outside of Hong Kong. This event has not had a profound or significant impact on anyone outside of the people directly involved, so it is very limited in scope. It has not brought about debate about any policy matters, law matters, etc. It is just a sensational news story. Likewise, as mentioned, the WP:DIVERSE tag calls for "wide-ranging reporting", not in quantity of reports on it (sure, there are a lot in regards to this, but it has already started dropping off news feeds), but in the quality of the reports. All the reports of this incident are, for the most part, the same. They mirror each other. I went through the references given on the page, and most references can be attributed to many of the sources, not just the one that is immediately referenced. There is nothing important here. Ksoth (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event is widely coverage in Hong Kong, Indonesia, UK and other countries. Ksoth said : "This incident has not, and likely will not, have a significant impact anywhere besides Hong Kong", but I think his/her statement is wrong. This event have significant impact in Indonesia. This event becoming headlines in some newspaper and news television in Indonesia. Also Indonesian police will sent to Hong Kong to investigate this murders. @NnAs (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Just because an event has been reported a lot in the news in a certain area does not mean it has had a significant impact in that area. It just means it was a news story in that area. Nothing about Indonesia's society has, or likely will, be impacted because of this story. Ksoth (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Lean towards keep -- certainly not a "local new[s] story", since it involves at least the UK, Indonesia, and Hong Kong, is receiving coverage elsewhere, and has implications for larger issues (illegal workers in HK, etc.). -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep event has been covered in more places than Hong Kong and the UK so an international story.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Too soon to say. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The level of salacious interest in the case has generated more than enough international coverage to satisfy the General notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but even this guideline says "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Although this isn't a biographical article, per say, it somewhat is. It is in regards to a single event and gives biographical information on non-notable persons. Likewise, the guideline says "As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events." This event has already dropped off the news. It is not an important event. Ksoth (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you've given up on arguing the notability of the event, and now shifts attention to the notability of the person. Yes, the person is not notable, that's why this article is not about any particular person. "Although this isn't a biographical article, per say, it somewhat is." - It is not. "This event has already dropped off the news." - No it has not, the trial has not begun yet, once the trial resumes, there may (or may not, in your opinion) be more reports. I think it has gained enough international coverage already for it to be 'given' notability. At the very least. and for future reference, if you think an event is border-line notable, and it has gained international coverage, wait for the entire story to play out and then decide whether it breaks a guideline, before nominating it. WP:RAPID. There are some articles which are obvious at the onset to be notable, or else every current event should be taken down? As someone that argues against the 2014_Virgin_Galactic_crash article (Talk:2014_Virgin_Galactic_crash), I think you need to have a good read about what WP:NOTNEWS really means.Kinkreet ^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 04:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I didn't give up on the notability of the event. My last response was just in relation with the last notability guideline comments. Look, a lot of "events" get a lot of news coverage. Lindsey Lohan getting arrested gets a lot of news coverage for days on end. That doesn't mean every arrest is a notable event that deserves an encyclopedia entry. Sure, it could be mentioned in the article about Lindsey Lohan, but not its own article. And for the most part, yes, this has dropped off news cycles. It may, or may not, come back up when the trial starts, but something that hasn't happened yet surely can't be used for basis of notability. Think about the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. It doesn't have its own article, although by and large that was a notable event (moreso because of the notability of Oscar Pistorius), but the event is combined with another article, the trial (also a notable event). With this case, there is no notability beyond the news coverage. Ksoth (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Very well. We have, for the n-th time, established the point that just because an event gets news coverage, it doesn't mean it's notable. But it doesn't mean it is not notable neither. Coverage, combined with some of the points other users have stated here, makes this article notable. "something that hasn't happened yet" - that's your opinion, the consensus here is that something notable has already happened. Why is the death of Reeva Steenkamp not its own article? Because the trial is more notable and the death of Steenkamp can be merged into it. Why is the Murder of Sharon Beshenivsky named so? Because the suspects were not more notable than the deceased. Why was 2012 Delhi gang rape named so? Because the rape that occurred sparked something, and the rape itself is more significant than who was raped. The point is, just because the murder of Reeva Steenkamp doesn't have an article named "Murder of Reeva Steenkamp", doesn't make the event insignificant. And just because it is ordinary in your eyes, doesn't mean an article should not exists for it. You can argue that rape happens all the time in India, why is this one so different? Well - it just so happens it is. We can sit here all day discussing whether it should be notable or not, or look at reality and accept the fact that it is.Kinkreet ^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 17:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The case has now sparked a police crack down on sex workers in Wan Chai, which puts it into a much wider context and negates the already shaky "one-event" argument for a non-biographical article. I've updated the article accordingly. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let we compare with this Afd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Disappearance_of_Hannah_Graham. This article event and the source only about USA, and the result is Keep. So I think with the more international coverage on the Murders of Sumarti Ningsih and Jesse Lorena article, the article should be Keep. @NnAs (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As this article today notes, it is the second murder in which Bank of America Merrill Lynch has been involved in Hong Kong in the last decade. The first has its article, Murder of Robert Kissel; and the coverage explains clearly why it's not just a local murder. In short, the accused is reportedly a UK native (and professional gambler, sorry 'competitive poker player' per my citation here; not yet in Wiki article) working for a US-based global company. As in the earlier murder, issues of expatriatism and much else are brought up in such a case. I for one was glad to find the accused quickly and by name in Wikipedia. If he's cleared I'd say the case would still be of sustained interest; not just a one-week salacious "news" story. Swliv (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an international news story with significant international coverage so justifies a Wikipedia entry.Dingowasher (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Time to call it? It seems a predominant consensus. Swliv (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be a consensus keepDingowasher (talk) 22:59, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd "XL" Stevens[edit]

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

Tagged for notability already, I don't believe this artist meets GNG Gbawden (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 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 ♔ 16:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. Perhaps we could add him to the list of Christian hip hop and rap artists, but that's about it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iaritmioawp - new and run of the mill musician. Bearian (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishakha Datta[edit]

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

I am not seeing how this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ego Hunter (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 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 ♔ 16:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable alright, co-founder of NGO "Point of View", and "first Indian to be appointed on Wikimedia board of trustees" in 2010 [14] --Ekabhishek^talk 13:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I have worked with Bishakha Datta on two WMF Board of Trustees committees; thus my comments should not be interpreted as either a "delete" or "keep". Ekabhishek, I'd hope anyone opining here would read the article; however, notability is not inherited. Being a founder of an organization does not make one notable, even if the organization is notable. Sitting on the Board of Trustees of a notable organization does not make one notable. It's quite possible there is more information about Bishaka's activities, perhaps in Indian-language sources; however, I note that there is only an article about her on English Wikipedia. Are you aware of any additional information? Risker (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Risker. I didn't find WP:NOTINHERITED specifically mentioning that "founders of notable organization are not notable." Does it? Do clarify. In any case, that is not why she is notable, as there are numerous Indian-language media references found here, also mentioning her documentary film work. (also see WP:INDAFD). -Ekabhishek^talk 11:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — First and most importantly, Datta's work as an filmmaker, journalist, member of the Wikimedia Foundation board, and her work with Point of View feel like, together, they should rise to the WP:N bar. The article does not do as good a good job of establishing notability as it should but we should fix the article, not delete it. The recent additions help enormously.

Second, the nominator seems to have 30 minute total contribution history to Wikipedia that exclusively involved nominating visible Wikimedia leaders' biographies for deletion. That contribution history, the username and user page, seems to me like somebody it might be trying to make a WP:POINT. Full disclosure, I found this because they also nominated the biography about me in the same session. Additionally, I have met Datta but I do not know her well. —mako ๛ 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (WP:NPASR) I bookmarked this page because of the hollow nomination statement which substitutes an absence of knowledge and an implied plea for help (AKA trolling) for WP:BEFORE methodology. And now I see that a review of the nominator's contributions reveals a planned 30-minute attack on Wikipedia. These are the two main planks of WP:SK, WP:SK#1 no argument for deletion, and WP:SK#2 unquestionable disruption. Unscintillating (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per above and appears to be one of several bad-faith nominations. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:15, 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 KEEP. The consensus seems to be that the article, while not necessarily sourced as well as it could be, is worth keeping. I'll tag it with ((Cleanup AfD)) as well. (non-admin closure) demize (t · c) 23:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Mako Hill[edit]

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

I respect BMH a lot, but I am not seeing how he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)? The references are either his own websites, or websites of organizations he is affiliated with. Hackers and Wikipedians (even WMF members) have no discount policy for meeting this Wikipedia requirement, I believe. Update: considering how nice the article is, formatting and all, perhaps Wikipedia:Userfy would be a solution? Ego Hunter (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refs in the article may not be sufficient, but a quick look through a google, gscholar, academic database, etc. search reveals a whole lot. Beyond cites and press coverage, he's on the board of directors at a well-known organization, Free Software Foundation, he's been an advisor to Wikimedia and One Laptop Per Child, he's prominent for his work with Debian and Ubuntu, he's a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center, fellow at MIT's Center for Future Civic Media... easy pass for WP:NACADEMIC. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the ping, Ego Hunter. He and I have become friends since I worked on this article, so now I'm conflicted. But I noticed that whatlinkshere isn't helpful, thanks to flooding from the GNU and Linux templates. If you're not getting enough discussion, you might ask the folk who maintain those templates if they have standards for notability and inclusion. – SJ + 09:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article relies almost exclusively on primary sources, and there doesn't seem to be much else out there. Jinkinson's idea at Samuel Jacob Klein to userfy the article seems like a good idea. Eddymason (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many primary sources have been added to the article, and I have tagged them as such. The sourcing on this BLP remains poor, and primary sources (the mailing list posts, his universities' announcements, etc.) do not demonstrate notability. Further, the opening paragraph describes his three books as "best-selling", and I am unable to find evidence of how well these books sold, but it's extremely rare for a technical manual/textbook to be a best-seller, so I've marked that one as requiring a citation. There was a Reddit thread used as a source, so I removed that, and tomorrow I will look at the YouTube video that is cited, but it is one hour long and it is bedtime here, so that will have to wait. Eddymason (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many of the primary sources you tagged are consistent with WP:PS and need not be changed to support notability or (more importantly) confirm their validity. Please see more recent versions of the article that reflect my efforts to address this issue in a more nuanced manner. Aaron (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon to have accumulated sufficient academic impact for a pass of WP:PROF, and the sources are insufficient to support a pass of WP:GNG for his free-software activities. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: usefication is a good idea; the work put into this should not be wasted - the subject is likely to be come notable in foreseeable future, if he isn't already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His history with Debian and Ubuntu, plus his directorship at FSF and roles Open Knowledge Foundation and Wikimedia, imply notability independently of any academic considerations, and his widespread speaking activities imply that notability is widely recognised. The fact the article doesn't use adequate sources is orthogonal and correctable. ClareTheSharer (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i found out that this article is candidate to be deleted. i have added references to interviews from main stream media (oreilly, linux journal) and reddit (ama). i work for a cultural center mama in zagreb and organized a lot of programs with an aim to bridge the world of free software activism with art & culture. i have hosted several talks by benjamin mako hill in croatia (zagreb, dubrovnik) and in serbia (novi sad, belgrade). he is able to successfully "translate" the values and topics in between different fields and he is recognized for that work. i'm sorry i'm not a experienced wikipedian so i can add quickly all of the wikipedia formalities mentioned in some of the comments above. Marcellmars (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Because of obvious WP:COI issues, I won't vote or edit. I will point out that I was surprised to find that User:Ego Hunter seems to have joined Wikipedia and nominated this biography for deletion in her/his third edit ever and that the account seems to have been created by an experienced Wikipedian specifically with the goal of proposing biographies of Wikimedia leaders for deletion. The username, user page, and highly focused edit history makes me a bit worried about WP:POINT.

Although this — and all other — AfD discussions should focus on the merits of notability, voters' lack of history with Wikipedia are often brought to light in AfD discussions and I thought I would also bring this up here. I'm going to go !vote on the other ongoing AfD's by this user (during the accounts 30 minutes lifespan!) accordingly.

Although I am very clearly biased, I personally think I probably do not qualify for notability under WP:PROF (~~although it might be close?~~ except under #7, which I had forgotten about) but very likely do for my work on free software. I also think that the article references do not reflect this and could be greatly improved. I would be happy to help provide citations to other editors who wanted to improve it although I suspect other Wikipedians can solve this just as well. —mako ๛ 03:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per ClareTheSharer. If a significant role in several noted projects, coauthorship of some of the highest profile books about major GNU/Linux distributions, along with about a dozen peer-reviewed articles, isn't enough to make one notable, then I'm not quite sure what is. – Miranche^T C 04:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:PROF #7, especially for his work on free software and advocacy of open access publishing. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As ClareTheSharer and Miranche pointed out, his recognized leadership positions and published work are fine for notability. I agree with Benjamin Mako Hill's concern about WP:POINT - this new editor nominated six biographies for deletion in one day, without apparent indication of following WP:BEFORE's recommendations to try to improve articles before nominating them for deletion. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis of WP:PROF #7 as others have argued already. I'll also point out that since the initiation of this AfD, several credible sources documenting notable activities have been added, suggesting that this really was a case where following WP:BEFORE would have resolved any putative notability concerns. Disclousre: my professional and personal relationship with Benjamin Mako Hill place me in a potential WP:COI situation (we are collaborators on several research projects). Aaron (talk) 17:09, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pestpocken[edit]

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

No hits, no major record deal, no coverage, no nothing. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there are tons of bands who havent signed with major labels but are significant with the scene. but go ahead and delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerochuckdude (talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 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 ♔ 16:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any evidence that these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion at WP:BAND or the WP:GNG. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 22:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any evidence of notability either. And there's not really any assertion of importance. --Boson (talk) 22:27, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Play![edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software, as far as I can tell. Finding sources for this is made difficult by its name, which neither Google nor DuckDuckGo will handle properly, but even websites listing PS2 emulators don't list this one. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and remove from Template:Sony emulators. Mostly first party sources, no established notability. As you said, finding sources would be near-impossible due to the name. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 12:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software (emulator) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks any significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 15:59, 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 no consensus. There is no clear consensus regarding if subject meets notability criteria, specifically if meeting the criteria to join the Fellowship of the RGS meets PROF. A number of the comments and !votes are by users who have little or no other contributions to Wikipedia; while all comments were read and considered, counting of votes was not used to reach a decision.. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. S. Daya Sagar[edit]

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

This article fails the notability criteria for academics as well as lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Most of references are either self-published or are not reliable. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being a Fellow of Royal Geographical Society is certainly notable. If he has accomplished all this at a young age (without even reaching a Professor level), it is even more notable. Check his book reviews here: [15]. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A h-index of 10 is not enough for WP:PROF, and fellowship of the RGS is not a selective honour. Anyone with an undergraduate degree is eligible (see here). -- 120.23.106.30 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting! ~~So, we shouldn't have a category called "Fellows of Royal Geographical Society".~~ Thanks for digging this up. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You just don't get to work with Dr. Jean Serra and be a Fellow of RGS and still be not notable. The reporter should read more information on his website. I'd certainly recommend the wikipage to be kept alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.170.163 (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prof. Sagar's research interests are on the applications of mathematical morphology and fractal analysis in computational geosciences, focusing on extraction and analysis landforms and features such as hydrological networks and mountains, dynamic simulation of water bodies and sand dunes, multiscale analysis and spatial interpolation. He has also worked on the applications of image and signal processing in a diverse range of fields, including analysis of transmission systems, speech modelling and classification and DNA landscape creation. His work has been recognised with several prestigious awards, including the Dr. Balakrishna Memorial Award (1995), Krishnan Medal (2002) and Georges Matheron Lectureship Award (2011). In addition to the numerous publications that he has made in highly respectable journals, he has also become guest editors for several special issues and two books. His most recent book, Mathematical Morphology in Geomorphology and GISci, has helped galvanise the applications of mathematical morphology in geospatial analysis. He has worked closely with several respected researchers, including Prof. Jean Serra, Prof. Arthur P. Crackenell, Prof. Gabor Korvin, Prof. Philippos Pomonis and Dr. Laurent Najman, highlighting the significant influence that he has in his field. My opinion is that Prof. Sagar is more than worthy to have a Wikipedia entry.Dinsat (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:Notability is not inherited so "working closely with several respected researchers" doesn't contribute to notability. The Dr. Balakrishna Memorial Award doesn't seem notable either, although the Georges Matheron Lectureship and Krishnan Medal could perhaps satisfy WP:PROF#C2. Any case for notability should probably concentrate on those. -- 120.23.108.6 (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prof Sagar has definitely made significant contributions to the research work especially in the area of Mathematical Morphology. Not only had he published his numerous research works in reputable and high-impact factor international journals and also in books, his contribution to the scientific community is also proven from the prestigious awards he received over the years, both at national level and international level. The awards he received include Georges Matheron Lectureship Award and Krishnan Medal etc. Moreover, he has also demonstrated his supervision skill and leadership skill by supervising postgraduate students (Masters and PhD level) and being head of SSIU (Systems Science and Informatics Unit), Indian Statistical Institute. Based on the notable contributions made by Prof Sagar, it is undoubtedly that he should be kept in the Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.203.19 (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His page needs to be kept live not only due to the fact that this page satisfies WP:PROF#C2, WP:PROF#C4, and to a very significant extent WP:PROF#C1. The two awards, this person recieved, that satisfy WP:PROF#C2 are Georges Matheron Lectureship and Krishnan Medal. A couple of examples evident from his homepage[16] that satisfy WP:PROF#C4 include short reviews on his book titled "Mathematical Morphology in Geomorphology and GISci" [17], and Journal Reviews[18], [19],[20] to name a few on his book. This book is available in libraries wide across [21]. With all this, this page is a 'Strong Keep'. Wikipedia has pages on the names of the 'awards' that this person received, but why the page created on this person (a recipient of these awards) is nominated for deletion. Please keep this page live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.67.32 (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly fails WP:PROF#C1 with a h-index of 10. With just two citations for the book "Mathematical Morphology in Geomorphology and GISci," I don't think it contributes to passing WP:PROF#C4 at all. And I'm not convinced that the Georges Matheron Lectureship and Krishnan Medal meet WP:PROF#C2, but I guess it's possible. -- 120.17.78.137 (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Average citation indices (eg.: h and g) vary from discipline to discipline. It is dangerous to take them as yard sticks to decide about one's 'Notability'. Many Awards' Committees are very cautious in selecting awardees based on these citation indices. It is more appropriate to take the Journal's Impact Factor into account. The excellent reviews [22], [23],[24] published in highly reputed journals such as 'ACM Computing Reviews', 'Journal of Mathematical Geosciences', and 'Geomatica' on his book entitled "Mathematical Morphology in Geomorphology and GISci" add a lot more value than number of citations that a book receives. These excellent reviews written by pioneering scientists certainly satisfy WP:PROF#C4. Two awards (Georges Matheron Lectureship Award and Krishnan Medal), in particular Georges Matheron Lectureship, he received--which are named after very eminent personalities Georges Matheron{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Matheron} and M. S. Krishnan[25]--are indeed notable and they are selective honors. These two awards satisfy WP:PROF#C2. It is not correct that every other recipient of these awards has a wikipedia page except this person. KEEP his page alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.253.17 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD is largely populated by IP users with no other edit history; it seems likely that Dr Sagar or someone close to him has canvassed off-wiki to tilt this AfD. Dea db eef 07:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — The large number of new editors participating in this makes me worried about WP:COI editing in the biography itself. That said, WP:COI is itself not a reason for a deletion but rather a reason to fix the article. The Fellowship in the Royal Geographic Society seems like it checks the box for WP:PROF#3. Given the sad state of this AfD, mine is a reluctant vote to keep but I think it's the correct thing to do. Does Wikipedia need this biography of Sagar? Maybe not. Should it have one? According to our policies, I think the answer is yes. —mako ๛ 21:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I am Dr. Rama Rao, Associate Professor at the Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Trivandrum, India. I came to know about Prof. Daya Sagar in 2007 through his students' works, and subsequently during my inquiries and interactions with him on advanced morphological techniques for my research area "hyperspectral image processing". I strongly feel, Prof. Daya Sagar has several contributions in the field of mathematical morphology, which speak for long lasting notability in the theory and applications of mathematical morphology.

I know one notable award of international reputation given to those who pioneered in Mathematical Morphology and Spatial Analysis is Georges Matheron Lectureship Award. Prof. Daya Sagar is one of those recipients of this prestigious award in 2011. Co-Founder of Mathematical Morphology Prof Jean Serra and an eminent spatial statistician Adrian Baddeley were the recipients of this award in 2006 and 2008. I compare Professor Prof. Daya Sagar against Jean Serra and Adrian Baddeley: that is a huge achievement for someone so young. With many other academic achievements as are evidenced from his webage[26], this page should be of a category Strong Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramarao.iit (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Admin with check user-right requested to investigate above votes! carefully. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 09:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins don't have that ability; you need to request it at WP:SPI. But I think we can count on the closing admin to weigh the policy-based arguments and not just to count votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article would have looked much more keepable if it had been written a little more modestly. Iy's always a dilemma whether to removethe flowery language from a borderline notable article or to just let it get deleted. . In this case, I'm going to clean it a little. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've done what I could with it. Notability would be because of one important book and the Matheron Lectureship. The Krishnan medal is less important, based on citation records of the recipients which range from similar to his to twice as high. FWIW, Baddeley's most cited papers have 921 & 346 citations each in Google Scholar; Serra 766 and 568; Sagar's highest are 32 and 24. One could argue that for Serra to have been given the prize this early shows recognition of his work as particularly significant, but I do wonder why the citations are so abnormally low. Usually such awards parallel the citations. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability criteria do not appear to have been met, personal recommendations from colleagues and grandiose peacock language notwithstanding. Not enough "there" there. KDS4444^Talk 06:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Freddi[edit]

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

Article subject has requested deletion via OTRS (ticket#2014103110016915, for those with access). Notability would appear to be borderline; in such cases, we have historically tended to respect requests like this. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems entirely fair, there's little claim of significance and no reliable secondary sources anyway. Sionk (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – he is a prize-winning author with many books and plenty of references. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – at request of subject. – Jonathan Bowen (talk) 01:05, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nexeridine[edit]

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

This is a notable topic but a useless article whose only nontrivial content is copied from a web resource. It should be deleted per WP:TNT. Sammy1339 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Also note that the creator is blocked as a sock. This may qualify for G5 deletion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. pablo 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Google finds enough sources to establish notability, but I agree to WP:TNT, given that the structure diagrams in this article are wrong (they don't match the cited sources -- "Nexeridine" refers to the acetate of the hexanol). -- 120.23.36.138 (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can find three different chemical structures identified as nexeridine. The Organic Chemistry of Drug Synthesis (link) matches the structure given in the drugbox. Dictionary of Pharmacological Agents (link) and Medicinal Chemistry (link) show the acetate ester. ChemIDplus shows the reverse ester. Despite these textbook and database listings, I'm not sure this is a notable chemical compound though. PubMed shows no results for nexeridine. A complete lack of medical literature, unless studies of this compound have been published using a synonym, suggests that there was never any serious research on this drug. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the content isn't accurate as Project Osprey notes below, there are problems with verifiability, and there are notability issues as well. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CAS No also resolves to the acetate ester (via Scifinder), the structure shown comes out as 58026-32-7. There is very little literature on either compound. The failure rate of drugs entering clinical trials is ~90% so there are a huge number of failed compounds such as this. Being a failed drug candidate is therefore not noteworthy. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should have been a speedy delete since this article was created by a sock of banned user, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nuklear. The compound itself fails WP:NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Gainer, Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:MILNG. Being the last of something doesn't make for notability. Is being a scout for Patton notable? The article on Patton makes one very slight mention of his having scout units. Nothing more. ...William 13:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions ...William 13:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions ...William 13:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject only appears to have received significant coverage in articles/obituaries about the subject's death. Therefore, even if those obituaries the subject is only notable for a single event and falls under WP:BIO1E, and as that event is the subject's death, and the death itself isn't notable the criteria set forth in WP:EVENT, this article then falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nothing against the service of the subject, however, the subject does not appear to be notable WP:SOLDIER, meeting none of the criteria set forth within it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Photo on front page and a substantial write-up in a newspaper here, but he does not appear to pass guidelines at WP:SOLDIER. I also found other local newspaper hits giving what would be routine coverage to his duties as mayor, etc. -21:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

While that does appear to be significant coverage, it doesn't appear to be enough to meet WP:GNG, as it is but one non-primary or secondary reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:11, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Drake (baseball)[edit]

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

~~Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N. Prod removed by an IP editor without any reason given. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)~~ I'll withdraw this nomination based on sources found. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. Alex (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you are saying to merge to a page you are asking to be deleted. You have no consistency. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. That's just a handful of the numerous that I found. Alex (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he passes GNG based on the above links, so I'll switch to KEEP. Alex (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Probably passes GNG, though he is still pretty run of the mill.--Yankees10 00:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's really faulty reasoning. They need to pass GNG to even merit a merge to the teams' minor leaguer pages? Then why even have the minor leaguer pages? If they pass GNG, then they qualify for standalone articles, which would make the teams' minor league pages unnecessary. Alex (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do we have to go over this? To be on those pages you should at least come close to passing GNG or be a top prospect/first round pick. Not random late 20's career minor leaguers.--Yankees10 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For significant players who otherwise fail of an article, obviously: top prospects, high draft picks, leading players for the AAA team. The subject here, by contrast, has pitched all of two innings above AA, and at his age, his prospects for anything better are somewhere between slim and zero. If you can demonstrate he meets the GNG, fine, but sheesh. Make mine Delete. Ravenswing 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But having those pages is redundant then, since passing GNG is enough for a standalone article. Alex (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the "For significant players who otherwise fail of an article" part. In any event, if what you'd like to do is debate the notability of those organizational pages, that ought to be done on their talk pages. This isn't the venue for it. Ravenswing 06:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you gave him the idea? Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep: While a couple of the links Alex posted above come from blogs, a few of them are feature news articles discussing Drake in significant detail from reliable media sources: the Worcester Telegram, the Maryland Gazette, WBAL radio, Bluefield Daily Telegraph ... However much Alex's antics at AfD of late have been pointy, we need to take each AfD on its merits. I'm now satisfied that the subject meets the GNG, and only wonder why such sources hadn't been produced earlier. Ravenswing 21:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources haven't been produced earlier because these guys don't even check Google before throwing out these AfDs. Alex (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Alexsautographs and Ravenswing. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC) (though this nomination was withdrawn so it should have been closed anyway). Alex (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and this really should be closed. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can these sources actually added to the article so it's not AfD'd a second time for lacking good sources? Wizardman 12:42, 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 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling R&B albums in the United States[edit]

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

Submit for deletion because no sources on the Internet have discussed this topic, and the albums listed here are not verified being R&B.--Retrohead (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List does not seem to work. For one thing, R&B is not clearly defined. I don't usually think of Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston as R&B artists. The other thing is we don't really know if the list is complete. We are just taking the word of the person who put it together. Borock (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague criteria for list inclusion, and only sourced by RIAA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:59, 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 D. J. Caruso. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spy's Kid (2015 film)[edit]

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

filming has not yet begun, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 11:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, TOOSOON. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until filming begins. It would be revert back to article when production starts. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect makes sense until some aspect of WP:NF is met. @Captain Assassin!: With respects, I rolled back your well-meant edit. Letting the article remain during discussion allows others to make informed judgements as to content, context, and sourcing. It may always be redirected when AFD is closed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:01, 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 01:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Vitolo[edit]

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

May have refs, but no real notability, imho Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of any significant coverage. Routine restaurant reviews, and a photo shoot (perhaps he is an unusually good-looking restaurateur, but that's not really notable). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABILITY Avono♂ (talk) 13:36, 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 01:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Kennedy (church leader)[edit]

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

Does not meet requirements for notability in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, The author and main contributing editor may have a conflict of interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Spellsgood (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article could be merged with Churches Together in England? Spellsgood (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no independent sources for this BLP. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 23 refs and not a single one satisfies WP:V. This is just a vanity page. Szzuk (talk) 14:24, 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 01:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antal E. Fekete[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and contains essentially original research that cannot be corroborated with reliable sources. Melt core (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is enough notable, the problem is the current article.--Sageo (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no coverage of this person from any reliable source. Per Wikipedia notability criterions, this person has not received significant attention from independent sources to be considered notable at all.

Additionally, I just noticed that the article is primarily maintained by user Flying Pete, which is either the subject himself or someone very close to him (see October 7th 2014 update). There is a conflict of interest/self-promotion situation here.--Melt core (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is one of those cases where I look for sources and there appear to be a lot, but upon closer inspection most seem to have some connection to Fekete. Holding off on a !vote for now, but could someone interested to keep the article provide a shortlist of the best independent sources here? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. If he's really as notable as Sageo claims, then creating a new article citing proper reliable sources would be easier than trying to repair all the problems with this version. Bearcat (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone would have come up with at least some reputable sources on Fekete by now. I think we should move on with the deletion.--Melt core (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears not to pass WP:PROF for his mathematics work and the sources do not support a pass of WP:GNG for his WP:FRINGE economic theories. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 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 no consensus. I could have closed this as NC or keep based on vote count, of course we don't do that. In particular, I discounted one argument which cited an explicit press release as going toward GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karmyn Tyler[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO at any point. Redirect to Star Search#Other performers or delete it. Karlhard (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as per nom - fails guidelines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll admit that some of the references are bad and smell like WP:REFBLOAT (the citation to a Wikipedia article, for instance, can go, it isn't helping anything). There are a few more of questionable independence or reliability, (YouTube, iTunes, IMDB...) but there are still two or three real citations. The substantial bio in this newspaper, and this are the best. The second one also shows that Tyler has been nominated for a notable award twice, thus allowing her to pass WP:ANYBIO. She also passes WP:GNG given the sources (which are already in the article). Finally, I haven't checked whether this person meets MUSICBIO, but whether she does or doesn't is irrelevant as long as she meets a relevant notability guideline. --Jakob (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — I don't normally work on musician articles so I'm not super familiar with WP:MUSICBIO. I do know that being nominated twice for a Grammy Award is a big deal and sure smells that it should make one notable. I know it would under many of the other biography policies. The references cited by Jakec don't exactly blow me away. The first is a local paper and the second is a press release which doesn't help establish notability. Still, I can't really get past the Grammy thing. Are there are less valuable Grammy Awards I don't know about? —mako ๛ 21:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Tyler to appear in new 'Inspector Mom' movie". Grand Saline Sun. 2007-02-22. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
2. "Former Hot Springs Native to Appear in Feature Film 'Candles'". Hot Springs Daily. 2014-09-18. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
3. "'True Love Waits' campaign comes to Clarksville". The Paris News. 1998-01-28. p. 13. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15 – via Newspapers.com.
4. "New Miss Louisiana says job just begun". The Advocate. Baton Rouge, La. Associated Press. 1995-06-20. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
5. "Texarkana woman crowned Miss Louisiana". Austin American-Statesman. 1995-06-19. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
6. Rose, Elaine (1995-09-13). "State Hopping is Common Among Pageant Contestants". The Press of Atlantic City. Archived from the original on 2014-11-15. Retrieved 2014-11-15.
The last four sources are her involvement in the Miss Louisiana contest. I think that they, in conjunction with the Grand Saline Sun article and the Hot Springs Daily article, allow Karmyn Tyler to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:57, 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 No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Smith (economist)[edit]

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

This one may or may not be notable per WP:PERSON, but the fact that it was ~~entirely~~ substantially written by Stanvsmith (talk · contribs)—likely the subject himself—and 68.23.230.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)—an IP owned by the subject—makes me uneasy. I say delete on the account of WP:AUTOBIO. bender235 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is misleading to say that he wrote his own bio. Looking at Revision history statistics, although he accounts for nearly a third (32.9%) of the edits to the page, he accounts for less than 7% of the content. The entirety of his contributions are modest and are accounted for by two editing burst 1 & 2) and a (single edit). Even including the IP shows he has just over half the edits (54.3%), but only 13.6% of the content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I decline to take a keep/delete stance since I have hired him in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 19:11, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 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. A7. Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas John Schorr[edit]

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

Self-promotion by the subject, no notability except a self-published book. Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movana Chen[edit]

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

Appears to be completely reliant on artist's own Web site and works. Notability appears highly questionable, even though she was mentioned in the South China Morning Post, which is worth something, but only something. Unless notability otherwise established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based almost entirely on self-published sources, fails WP:ARTIST as written. The SCMP mention that Nlu refers to is not even in the article itself... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references do not look substantial (predominantly primary) and searches are turning up mainly user-submitted media plus one mention in a group list of artists. Possibly WP:TOOSOON but fails WP:ARTIST criteria at this point. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 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 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Spine[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is an advertisement or if this is a notable clinic. Many of the sources have text nearly identical to each other and to this article, and known that Indian media often will publish anything for cash, I suspect that the sources were bought and paid for. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether ofr not its a notable clinic, this is advertising. It's a promotional article advocating their specific vesion of complementary medicine. A discuss of the benefits and otherwise of medical techniques belongs in the NPOV articles on the various techniques and methods., not in the articles for any particular clinic or medical center. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article conforms to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and meets the notability guidelines. It is unfair to single out a single country for paid news as it is a global phenomena. Will remove the non-core material which has pointed out in the article. Thank you for pointing it out. Dipenuchil (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see how there was "singl[ing] out [of] a single country" here. If it's advertising, it should go. --Nlu (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is promotionally written, and is currently a coat rack for promotion of a particular therapeutic point of view that is not evidence-based. -- Scray (talk) 14:30, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Azinee Taib[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 15:10, 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]

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 Adam's Bridge. SpinningSpark 16:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Karmabhoomi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, highly POV, and not at all an encyclopedic topic. Clearly violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. I had previously turned this article into a redirect, but an editor disagreed with that, so bringing to AfD for community decision. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this second nomination, as it was opened accidentally, due to network issues. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page links direct here and so I've closed the first AFD in favour of this one. If it is kept and nominated again a second, second nomination might cause problems. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Very notable geological feature if talking only about the chain of shoals between Sri Lanka and mainland India, in English known as Adam's Bridge. Change to redirect to the Adam's Bridge article for those who look up "Ram Karmabhoomi" when they see this in one of the blogs/news entries on this pressure group. The term "Ram Karmabhoomi" seems only connected to a pressure group which is opposed to the creation of a shipping channel cutting through these shoals. The name does not seem to be used for the region at all apart from the pressure group. - Takeaway (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:neologism, not supported by secondary RS or Hindu epics as a distinct technical term.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Of course it is a new term, but it is shares relation with Adam's Bridge. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see any sources for the term. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 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 ♔ 04:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Adam's Bridge — I have not background or context here but the article sure sounds like it's referring to Adam's Bridge. To the extent that this is talked about in press and such, we should explain the term but do so in another article if this is not common enough that to deserve it's own article. —mako ๛ 22:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Of Machines. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chroma Dreamcoat[edit]

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

This article has no reliable sources for this album. In fact, there is no certainty that this album will ever be released. Redirecting seems illogical since there is no confirmation of an actual release or even that the album is in production. Far too speculative. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Topic is covered in Band Of Machines and is thus redundant. --Lfrankblam 17:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 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 ♔ 04:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with history - Keep per WP:CHEAP, as the title of the album was discussed at AbsolutePunk. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to retain. Per WP:NALBUMS, "unreleased material is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." No significant coverage here and there is no certainty or confirmation that it will ever be recorded, which means it doesn't even meet the definition of an "unreleased album". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 10:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - If this is the case, then we can redirect with history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds like it's all still just an idea that may or may not ever proceed beyond that. Nothing is official. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - If Chroma Dreamcoat is well sourced enough to be mentioned in Of Machines, then the principle of least astonishment would have the former lead to the latter. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Tumblr = well sourced? How can you have an article or even a redirect for something that does not exist and may never exist? Maybe they'll record this album, maybe they won't, maybe this won't even be the title. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -If "Chroma Dreamcoat" should not be redirected, then it should not be mentioned at all within the Of Machines article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band. Nothing sourced: nothing to merge. A little messy here, but there is a post about the EP on the band's Facebook (primary source). Was hard to find that, nevertheless secondary sourcing. Redirect as a useful search term czar ♔ 00:26, 17 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. WP:BLPDELETE with a side order of copyvio j⚛e decker ^talk 06:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Robles[edit]

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

Subject of much edit warring (and see OTRS 2014102010014189 if you have access) - no inline references to show notability. Additional Citation banner has been there for years. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any of the founded US non-profits in the usual sources (Guidestar). The latest organization appears to be in South AfricaLaMona (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC), which at least should be noted in the article. The last three of the references are dead links. The article would need considerable work to meet notability standards. I would change my vote if it were significantly upgraded with third party references. Oddly, it doesn't mention that he wrote two books about Schweitzer. Those would not establish notability, but they appear prominently in search engine results. Weighting against this article is that it is the work of a single purpose account. The edit-warring account calling itself "Harold Robles" wrote some colorful text but unfortunately provided no references. I didn't look extensively but I didn't run across anything supporting those additions to the article. LaMona (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 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 ♔ 03:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Vardy[edit]

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

Autobiography with very little sourcing. I see no evidence that the subject is notable. Most of the information I find is content written by the subject, not actually about him, and much of the article appears to be an attempt at notability by association. Kinu ^t/_c 16:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two investment letters listed get a 404 not found on his site, so those are defunct. His investment company lists just him under "Meet our team" (never a good sign). I found no mention of him in US newspapers with good financial news coverage. I also couldn't find any references that would confirm his educational background. He seems to be, or have been, an active investor, but not notable. LaMona (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 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 ♔ 03:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Highbeam search turns up several mentions of the subject in the context of market reviews/picks, but nothing substantially about the subject that would establish biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of an Era (band)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. thisisace (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only WP:BAND criteria it approaches is #1 with the Aquarian article, but multiple sources are needed. The first two sources are just directories with a republished press release, and the third is a blog. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 12:52, 20 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 00:16, 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 ♔ 03:28, 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. None of those arguing to keep the article has given any reason that has any weight under Wikipedia's policies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. K. Loganathan[edit]

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

Delete, article is unclear on how this person is actually notable. it says alot about the claims and the books he wrote but not sources that show he passes WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that this academic has made a significant impact in their discipline or meets any of the other carefully-crafted WP:SCHOLAR criteria. Nor, it appears, is there is significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
′′′Accept′′′. More referencing has been added to show that this academic is a scholar in several new fields of study. Highlights are the study linking Sumerian language as archaic Tamil as well as Agamic Psychology. ––machupichu5678 (User talk:machupichu5678) — Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

––ellapura (User talk:ellapura) < Accept! He is contemporary philosopher educationalist on Tamil and Dravidian cultures. I have made use of his findings and published a research paper, see the link at the end. Dr. Loganathan of meykandar yahoo group finds Sumerian language Is archaic form of Tamil and Sanskrit. My hypothesis is a partial off.shoot from that finding, only if they have fluently spoken a language, they would have used it to write down. The edubbaa also praises how the sir.poems were spreading to tur far.off places. If this is true, we could expect sir phrases words in many of languages in use around the world. I also suggest to revise the observation that Sumerian language is dead, but alive in the form of Tamil. Based on Dr. Loganathan research inputs, research paper on e.dub.ba.a is published in reputed journal, please see: abstract: link: http://www.nitttrbhopal.org/journal/volume7/volume7issue2.pdf>

Delete unless evidence of notability can be found. Every source currently in the article either doesn't seem to mention Loganathan or is written by him. So there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, nor is there evidence that he meets any of the criteria at WP:SCHOLAR. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
′′′Accept′′′ The sources quoted in the article clearly mention that Dr K Loganathan, also known as Ulagan is the author. Just to quote one example, ref 16 'Agamic Psychology and Religious Experience' is clearly written by him, his name is mentioned in that article. What other evidence do we need? It goes for all the other references given in that article.––machupichu5678 (User talk:machupichu5678)

Sources that are written by Loganathan aren't enough to show notability—we need reliable sources that are independent of him. See WP:Notability for more information. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've semi-protected the article for four days due to disruptive POV edits by two or three IPs, but obviously they were inserting negative material rather than trying to improve the article. I note the original creator is autoconfirmed but the one other account that added valid content is not. I have the article in my watchlist and will respond to any edit requests that could possible save the article from deletion, and I suggest the nominator do the same thing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, I agree with the comments above, lacks notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
′′′Comment′′′Dr Loganathan's finding that Sumerian is archaic Tamil is the first in the world. No one else, to the best of my knowledge has done such a thorough study to prove this link. I would equate his findings to Galileo Galilei finding. His findings are open to be debated. Many linguist have debated with him but no one has defeated him.He has been saying this for the past 40 years but not many have accepted it, which I believe is due to political reasons. But truth should be told. Why should 'TRUTH' be deleted? machupichu5678 (User talk:machupichu5678)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:TRUTH Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails all the relevant policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
------------------------------------------------

This is a view point to KEEP the article and NOT DELETE: Sumerian is the first civilization that created a script. Its the starting point of writing. Mesopotamian is the cradle of civilizations. Faith of the whole world originated there.

Whole world, thinks that the language spoken by Sumerians is an isolate. Most of the western linguistic scholars, dont know if Sumerian language is living at this point in time.

Dr. LogaNathan is the one giving a new direction to the linguistic world, through his research. His sumerian decipherings provide an actual purpose of religion and faith (as written by sumerians) which is still being followed by Millions of people in India, China and around the world.

He is the only one of the kind, who can reveal the secrets written in Mesopotamia. Humanity needs him. Humans should know about him. World will have to wait thousand of years to produce another Loganathan. If he is not there, humans will continue to live and die, without knowing - the secrets of Sumerian writings, the origin of faith, the purpose of religion in moulding humanity.

Thanks Rathinavel Raj K — Rathinavel Raj K (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

′′′Comment′′′ - If we have to follow all rules, then Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin would not have made it to Wikipedia with these rules. As I said earlier, Dr LOga's findings are pioneering studies especially the one linking Sumerian with Tamil. I think this is one occasion where WP:Ignore all rules should be applied. machupichu5678 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take time and read the links, people are ignoring you because we've pointed you to why we have these policies and what's relevant but you make assertions that justmake no sense. Charles Darwin and Galileo are here because they are widely covered and cited by their peers. Being a pioneer doesn't make you eligible for a Wikipedia article, it just means you tried something new. Being notable requires something more so this is not an appropriate invocation of IAR. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable and independent sources that cover the subject in nontrivial detail, failing WP:GNG as well as WP:PROF. But more strongly, neutral coverage of fringe subjects (and a claimed link from Sumerian to Tamil is definitely fringe) requires mainstream sources so we can properly indicate how the subject's theories have been received. We have none of those sources either. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
′′′Comment . Sumerian civilization being the oldest in the world and the first written language by Homosapiens being proven by this scholar as archaic Tamil is fringe? As I said earlier , this is a groundbreaking study, there are no mainstream sources to comment on this as they do not know of this link! The mainstream considers Sumerian as an isolate language. Dr Loga's study proves otherwise. The main idea of having this article on Wikipedia is for the mainstream sources to know and research further on this claim. Dr Loganathan is probably the only person on earth who is an expert in Sumerian and Tamil, and he could see the link. We can't expect the mainstream sources to see the link between a dead language (Sumerian) and an unheard language...Tamil, can we? -machupichu5678 (User talk:machupichu5678) — Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so if we can't expect significant mainstream reliable coverage you shouldn't expect it to pass WP:GNG or WP:VERFIABILITY Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a global appeal and readers from a cross section have in interest in it, with a range of topics,Article on K.Loganathan has a backdrop on his 40 years of involvement in a particular stream of study, that has evinced interest in quite a few scholars.Now what is mainstream research and what is evidence is all very abstract, there can be counter stream an opposite view and evidence is evolving and subject to enlightenment,for instance earth was flat earlier, then round -it revolved round the sun or sun centric now there s recent research that earth spirals around vacuum and follows sun spiral.What is important is the contribution and not how long and how much it is acceptable, acceptance has many circumstances.Dr.K.Loganathan has a point of view and has been addressing these as research articles, internet debates and speeches, for this contribution his place in wikipedia can be secured.Kindly therefore dont propose to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghava (talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show references to where "quite a few scholars" have discussed Dr Loganathan's theory in reliable sources? Wikipedia does not cover new theories when they are first put forward, only after they have been the subject of independent discussion and comment. The fundamental policy WP:No original research includes: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete--Vraghava (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)--Vraghava (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Five research Articles Published in International Institute of Tamil Studies Chennai.See the Link Below, It is a Government Organisation.[reply]

034 - December 1988 045 - 072 Sumerian Si-in and Old Tamil Cin : A Study in the Historical Evaluation of Tamil Verbal System

019 - June 1981 087 - 098 'என்று', 'என்பது' ஓர் இயக்கவிலக்கண விளக்கம்

016 - December 1979 084 - 098 இயக்கவிலக்கண கிளவியாக்க விளக்கம்

010 - December 1976 089 - 111 தொல்காப்பிய மரபுவழி மொழிப்புணர்ச்சி இலக்கணம்

008 - December 1975 040 - 061 Sumerian : Tamil of First Cankam

International Institute of Tamil Studies.

Articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghava (talk • contribs) 08:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vraghava (talk • contribs) 08:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

------------------------------------------------

KEEP / NO_DELETE Dear Editor, Is there any scholars on Sumerian linguistics who have provided comment above (those who say Delete)? I dont see any scholarly comment from people qualified on the specific domain/area of research. No point in voting 'DELETE' without knowing the subject we are talking here. Some of the scholars show their ignorance (dont know Tamil, dont know about dialects of Sumerian). Dr Loganathan has rightly concluded that Sumerian dialects, eme kir and eme sal are same as archaic Tamil.

Kindly refrain from passing comments if you dont know about the subject in discussion. This is not a Voting platform. We are talking about knowledge and making it available for Human Beings. Atleast that was my thought about Wiki. Regards, Rathinavel Raj K (Not a puppet.. i live in Toronto, I have not met or spoke to any of the people here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathinavel Raj K (talk • contribs) 22:54, 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 00:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Beauregard[edit]

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

Promotional article in wildly excessive detail about photographer who has won no awards and has work in no museums. Apparent autobiography -- as is the frWP version. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatant promotionalism; resume → autobiography belongs elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 03:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jubanashwa Mishra[edit]

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

Despite the references, this is not of encyclopedic interest. It's the sort of human interest story that belongs in a believe it or not, not an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the nominator's statement. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom; WP:ONEEVENT.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure why this hasnt been speedied. Amortias (T)(C) 23:25, 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. SpinningSpark 00:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revue libre de droit[edit]

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

Unsourced, promotional article. Can't see any independent sources. Was CSD nominated as copyvio & not notable. CSDs removed by an IP who may or may not be the original author (who hasn't edited since). To be safe, bringing to AfD. Bazj (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced promotional article on a non-notable journal that apparently was founded in 2014. Paraphrases [36] very closely.--Lemnaminor (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 20 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 18:33, 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 ♔ 00:18, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shivdeep Lande[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Has a fan following in the Social Networking sites though! Uncletomwood (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep has multiple newspaper appearances, so passing WP:GNG Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like normal policing to me. Not particularly notable, despite the media coverage. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 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, czar ♔ 00:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has nothing to do with whether or not it's 'normal policing', as soon as there is in depth, independent coverage then its notable. In cases such as this, common sense suggests we probably do need extra to prove it. A quick google however found PatnaDaily, DailyMail United Kingdom, BiharPrabha, Sakaal Times, ZeeNews, Hindustan Times, India Today, Times of India, India Telegraph. JTdale. Together this constitutes Regional, Local, National and International media sources. ^Talk 02:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources listed by JTdale appear to exceed BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article because its notable person... no good reason we delete.... and much coverage in newspapers, will be more in future... good for encyclopedia article 41.190.36.250 (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart guests[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is never updated and I don't see the reason for it when there is already a list of episodes with each guest. Aqlpswkodejifrhugty (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 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]

Comment/Question - It seems like we need a plan for what to do with Category:Lists of The Daily Show guests. There are lists of Daily Show episodes for each year, a List of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart episodes (which goes back to 1996, before Jon Stewart -- more in line with the other page titles of just e.g. List of The Daily Show episodes (1996)), and then there's the one this AfD concerns. My inclination is to merge them all into the one list of episodes, but I have a feeling this has been hashed out in the past... --— Rhododendrites ^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, czar ♔ 00:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This parses the data differently enough to distinguish itself from List of Daily Show episodes, in my estimation. Useful navigational function as a source of in-links. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE per sparse participation. Deor (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TimeShift Trivia[edit]

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

Article about a purported Canadian television series, relying entirely on deadlinked primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage to attest that it qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Searches on both Google and ProQuest both failed to turn up any concrete evidence whatsoever of its existence, to boot — not a good sign for a series that purportedly aired on one of the country's major commercial television networks — meaning that the content here is completely unverifiable. Delete unless some actual sourcing can be located to grant it notability under WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N ~~and also appears to fail WP:V~~. After several searches, not finding any coverage in (independent) reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my comment above, added info in parentheses. Found a primary source that provides verification ([37]), but still no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:27, 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 ♔ 00:18, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eudes Assis[edit]

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

I'm not sure that this chef is notable. I've tried to improve the translation and clean up the promotional language, but I'm not sure it meets WP:GNG. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He seems to be quite the celebrity chef in Brazil: 1. TV appearance, 2. Folha de S. Paulo newspaper mentions him as "talented chef", 3. award from notable Brazilian food magazine, 4. appearance on the local food channel, 5. article in the Brazilian "Home and Garden" magazine, 6. another food channel appearance, and 7. this newspaper which says: "chef Eudes Assisi, an icon of Brazilian cuisine..". There seems a whole lot more of which I can't say how notable the sources are, such as this one. As chefs go, this one gets a lot of media attention. - Takeaway (talk) 22:09, 20 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 18:21, 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 ♔ 00:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Several sources have been found. I'd say that this just passes notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:16, 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. No support for a "keep" outcome following two relistings Philg88 ^♦talk 07:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Xin[edit]

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

Among other issues, this article is an orphan, tagged for WP:GNG issues since July 2008, and the subject appears to only be notable for one event. In fact, most of the article talks about the event more than the person involved. The article says that Yang is "a famous Chinese actress" yet there doesn't appear to be any notable films that contain the actress. Sounds more and more like a BLP1E to me. Aerospeed (Talk) 16:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - The article says "several movies" but IMDB shows the single credit. I don't see enough to indicate notability right now. It is hard to guess on Chinese sources, but they do seem more bloggish than RS. Dennis - 2¢ 17:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:12, 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 ♔ 00:17, 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. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other recommendations for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Starr (artist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Resubmit after it was a soft delete and challenged. Clearly fails WP:ARTIST. The reference links are weak in terms of even claiming to establish notability. Many go to articles about some other topic, with a quote made by this artist sometimes about somebody elses work. This is not notability. The most perplexing reference link is one to "Over-the-top Super Bowl deals", which somehow vaguely seems to be something from the artists resume? —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 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, czar ♔ 00:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis that, for good or ill, new media artists seems to attract the ear of, erm, new media. Living in New York probably helps. There are a number of online media magazines that have written about, or interviewed him (including one 2 days ago). The article certainly needs clean-up and is still weak on sources but squaks over WP:GNG criteria in my view. Sionk (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would think that a new media artist would have more, rather than less, apparent coverage on the internet. To those of us who can remember a time when there was no internet, itis still thought of as new media.—Gaff ^ταλκ 16:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, hence my 'weak' keep. There is a fair amount of credible news sources about him, but they are not at all major, and I wouldn't argue if someone else erred towards 'weak delete'. I obviously got out of bed on the good side on 2 Nov ;) Sionk (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who did the soft delete for the last AfD nomination apparently was on the side that it should be deleted. I'm still not clear how it meets WP:Artist. Hopefully another editor can comment before this gets closed as "no consensus?" —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTIST is an alternative to the 'route one' WP:GNG, i.e. "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." If he meets WP:GNG he doesn't also have to meet WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Starr meets the WP:GNG for a notable person, the one statement with an incorrect citation has been updated, and his page has been updated with his most recent project which was widely covered by notable art press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.254.13.131 (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by NOM —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:44, 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.