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 22:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mwangwego alphabet[edit]

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

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

Non-notable language system. Sources appear to be affiliated with the creator of the system. Results of Google have questionable notability. Unresolved notability since January 2012. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per arguments by Mr. Guye (nominator). Quis separabit? 23:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It is the subject of this article: [1] which interestingly explains what it is about better than the Wikipedia page does. Mentioned a number of times in other sources e.g. this proposal to encode it in Unicode and this talk abstract by a theoretical physicist. It could be significant as a political phenomenon. I wonder if there is any coverage in Bantu-language newspapers. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is a recognized script which is currently in use and has been around for more than 30 years in a location that most readers and editors have never been to, and probably a fair share of people have never heard of the nation alone. Wikipedia has a consensus on keeping locations, including villages and "dead languages". I see no reason to omit the article simply on the basis that an abugida for a foreign language, that Google cannot even translate to, on the basis of an English search results on Google. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it exists, but fails WP:GNG without sufficient reliable secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, plenty of hits on google. 78.144.252.27 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, citations have been filled in. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - It appears to have be semi-notable enough (a quick google) and has been around a long while. Lack of referenced usage outside Mwangwego.com is worrying. Couldn't find much academic or book references, apart from this mention on academia.edu KylieTastic (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Ungs[edit]

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

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

Non-notable former professional baseball player. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Was kept previously because he played in the top Chinese league, but that no longer qualifies as notable under WP:BASE/N. Nor does his participation in the Australian league. Alex (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.. Can't see anything notable here. Spanneraol (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete didn't find enough evidence of notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arcenio León[edit]

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

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

Another non notable minor league free agent with no decent sourcing. Prod removed by Alex because he apparently "saw a squirrel today." Spanneraol (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 10-year minor league veteran with Triple-A experience and all I could find is [2] and [3]. For shame, Internet. For shame. Alex (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're reasoning for removing these PROD's really show your lack of sincerity of Wikipedia.--Yankees10 00:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just think PRODs are stupid. Alex (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But you should at least give a reason for removing them. Not nonsense.--Yankees10 00:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It gets boring saying the same thing over and over. Alex (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prods arent stupid, Alex... they save time and avoid having to go through this process for someone who is gonna get deleted anyway. You voted delete, should have let it get prodded and avoided having so many of these. Of course half of these guys are the minor league scrubs youve been adding to the minor league pages. Spanneraol (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're completely idiotic. They go entirely against what Wikipedia is supposed to be - consensus-driven. By PRODding these and especially by not telling others they are being PRODded (as one of us is wont to do), it greatly diminishes the potential for others to find sources to prove notability. As has happened many times already, these "non-notable minor leaguers" you guys keep proposing for deletion are found to pass GNG after a little digging. Alex (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Fails GNG.--Yankees10 00:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To be fair to Alex, he is not the only who thinks PRODs are pointless. There's no real harm in creating the AFD. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:19, 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. Rough consensus is to delete. Let it be noted that library holdings can be an indication of notability, and low holdings are probably not an argument for notability. Being cited and mentioned is probably an argument for likely notability, but in the end it's reliable sources providing significant discussion that proves notability--and editors here agree broadly that this is missing. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Pynchon[edit]

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

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

The last articles for deletion was a disaster due to an outside group on a crusade against this person. But looking at it, it probably would have been deleted. I don't see any plausible way she can be notable, certainly not her blog. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not WP:LINKEDIN. Pynchon is no doubt a competent professional, but that is not the same thing as meeting WP:GNG. Things like "appearing on The Marketplace's The Morning Report" to comment on an issue shows she is competent, but are not coverage showing notability. There are no substantive claims showing notability supported by sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My conclusion is the same as last time: weak delete. She has a few passing mentions in Independent Reliable Sources, but most of the rest of the references are self-referential. In a search I found one additional source [4] but "Bizwomen" does not seem like much of a source. Things written by her do not count; we need things written ABOUT her by third parties, and those seem to be lacking. --MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient reliable sources referencing or discussing her to pass WP:N. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Amended comment: As noted by Ravenswing, when a subject is discussed in significant detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources, the GNG standard is met, which is the case with the subject of this article. And Milowent's description -- "that Los Angeles Daily Journal thing is not a regional publication but a local legal newspaper which did a puff biz piece on her which she republished everywhere" -- does not make it so. It was a profile in a reliable newspaper and appears to have been written by a staff writer. Does the subject of an article, by republishing it elsewhere, diminish the original content and make it not count toward GNG? Original comment: In a search, I found three sources not included in the article and added them. One is an interview with Pynchon (about her) in a legal periodical. The second one is an annual conference of the New York Bar Association where she was keynote speaker. The third is a listing by Rasmussen College of the Top 100 Academic Law Twitter Feeds in 2010, which includes Pynchon. These are substantive claims that show notability --AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For some reason, my "Keep" appears as "Delete" in the AfD Vote Counter. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently the vote counter doesn't trust your vote!!  :-) Seriously though, those sources are not good indicia of notability. Where are the regional newspaper spreads on her? Typically two in-depth profiles of someone in a national or regional mainstream publication is a good case for notability. One you get below that the Afds go from borderline to worse.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good one ref: the vote counter! :-) Is not multiple coverage by reliable national and regional newspapers and news outlets (CNN, Wall Street Journal, NPR, Newsday, San Diego Union Tribune, Parade magazine, etc.) equal to a couple of profiles of a person to show notability? A profile was done by the Los Angeles Daily Journal, which is considered a regional publication, and a periodical did a profile. I have seen that similarly discussed in other AfDs and those articles with multiple coverage without profiles have passed GNG. The nom saying the article "probably would have been deleted" the first time is not a valid reason for deletion. We do not know that, especially given so many of the Delete votes were a result of the outside crusade to have the page deleted. Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Very very weak keep The references in this article need work. Many of them do not link to the article being referenced, but to the Wikipedia page for the journal. (I think there's a misunderstanding about the citation format by some contributor(s)). Without that cleanup it's hard to know what's going on here. In some cases, I was unable to find the article being referenced. I fixed a few, and made notes on another. I would say that this is a notability edge case, but with improvements to the references it could be turned around. LaMona (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I searched and found that her blog postings for her site are included in the Library of Congress' archive of legal blogs so I added it to the article with a source. I also found a Fox Business News segment of The Willis Report, where she was the only person interviewed and I added that, along with two back-to-back appearances on Minnesota Public Radio during the state's 2011 budget hearings to discuss negotiations. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, I'm not sure that adds much -- Library of Congress archives whole periods of the full twitter feed, so it's not a huge sign of significance. I'd rather see more references in reliable publications. LaMona (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox Business News segment adds a reliable news outlet to the mix. Will see what else I can find. Thanks. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Off topic: Could someone edit my "Keep" (above) so it does not continue to register as "Delete" on the Stats vote counter? Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It should be noted that six months ago (two years after the 1st AfD), AutoAdmit wrote on its page about getting Pynchon's Wikipedia article deleted, "lets get this going again!" It is dated April 10, 2014. Here's the link (scroll to bottom). Stumbled on it during a Google search. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you displaying such zeal in this AFD, Author? I think you are demonstrating she is not notable by noting items like a Library of Congress archive of a twitter feed. And that Los Angeles Daily Journal thing is not a regional publication but a local legal newspaper which did a puff biz piece on her which she republished everywhere.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After the last afd on this article, I remember some of the other contributors voicing a suspicion that this was paid editing on the part of AuthorAuthor, and the behavioral indicators all seem to support this. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that by attempting to address the issues raised at AfD, it is considered "zeal." In Wikipedia discussions, I have voiced my opposition to anyone being paid to edit and/or create articles on Wikipedia. I have not received payment for this or any other Wikipedia article. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever someone shows zeal to this extent there is a reason; I know this from participating in at least 1000 AfDs. I don't mean its some bad reason, and surely wasn't thinking of paid editing, I was just wondering. I just assumed you know Victoria, but its no big deal. I often show great zeal in preventing articles from being deleted because I'm an inclusionist, and I've gotten flack for it; but I also agree with the purposes and spirit of WP:GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar questions can arise when there is zeal about an article being deleted in light of a current post from a controversial group soliciting help in getting it done. And I certainly hope I do not get criticized for mentioning the elephant in the room.-AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:31, 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, Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete, the subject has received passing mention in a multitude of non-primary or secondary reliable sources, the subject has also authored or co-authored multiple pieces of journalism and a few papers. That being said there do not appear to be multiple reliable sources, where the subject of this AfD is the primary topic, and where the subject of this article is given significant coverage, thus not passing WP:GNG. Furthermore, since the last AfD, the subject does not appear to have added significant amounts of academic work, or meet any other the criteria set forth in WP:NACADEMICS. The only possible route for notability, that I can see is WP:JOURNALIST, criteria #1, but I have not yet been convinced that the subject of this AfD is a "important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Therefore, at this time, it is my opinion that the subject does not yet meet a guideline for notability, and thus the article should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks notability, self promotion as well--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Recognized expert on mediation, office politics and bargaining in the workplace, her views are quoted often by reliable sources, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here. She was described by NPR as an expert. She's picked up by international papers such as the Guardian. She contributes regularly as a writer for Forbes such as here. While I agree there are problems with the current article (poor sourcing, BLP issues, promotional cruft) these problems are not reasons for deletion when there are so many sources available. If the article is kept here, I will try to revamp it when I have time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is every "expert" in every field notable? Of course not. There are millions of "expert" attorneys. She's simply competent in her field, yet there is precious little coverage about her as a notable person. When was she born? None of her biographical information is sourceable to news sources, this makes her bio ripe for vandalism.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Spurious arguments; simply, she's notable. First, the "she's simply competent in her field" argument: not merely "simply competent" but her expertise is quoted in numerous reliable sources, again and again (see above); if there are "millions" of experts in the field of mediation, how come Victoria Pynchon is the one who is quoted in Forbes? Or, why was she chosen by Wiley Publishers to co-author a book on Mediation Styles? Or that her reports in Forbes get picked up by Mac Observer magazine here? Or, that she is a guest on Minnesota Public Radio? Or her views are extensively quoted in BusinessWeek magazine? Because she's notable. Second, your "none of her biographical information is sourceable to news sources" argument is a head-scratcher -- since when is this a test of notability? Personally, who cares when she was born, or her shoe size, or her preference for colors of drapes -- what matters is her advice about workplace issues, such as legal secretaries jostling in the power hierarchy or about networking, and coverage is plenty sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Third, your "precious little coverage about her as a notable person" argument is incorrect since what is interesting is not who she is but what she does (which is notable) such as help working women negotiate for better pay. She meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yours is essentially the spurious argument, completely backwards, in fact. Forbes, Wiley, Minnesota Public Radio, etc., did not carry VP because she was notable, but because they felt her work would suit part of their respective audiences. The question for us is whether this resume, so to speak, satisfies WP:GNG. You are correct that covering VP the person is not a requirement. When that kind of WP:RS coverage happens, that usually is because WP:GNG is met. But we do not have to wait for MSM to decide for us. Choor monster (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Forays into the metaphysics of sourcing -- why Forbes and Wiley and Minnesota Public Radio publish her views -- is off topic. Simply put, Victoria Pynchon is notable as an expert regarding negotiating strategies, advice for workers, mediation. I agree the current article looks very much like a resume, but the question should be, Is this subject notable?, and she is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply: There is a curious notion floating around AfD in recent months that it somehow matters why or how someone's attracted media attention. This bizarre theory is unsupported by Wikipedia policy and guideline. The GNG just requires that a subject be covered in significant detail in multiple, reliable, published sources; it neither requires that subjects must then go forward to meet some amorphous "I think it's important enough" bar, nor that a subject also pass a subordinate notability criterion. Meeting the GNG is quite enough, and as Tomwsulcer correctly states, it doesn't matter worth a tinker's damn why Forbes or NPR think her views are important. Ravenswing 01:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment: the subject's publications themselves do not count towards "covering the subject", although we might glean personal information from such sources. Tomwsulcer was originally claiming that Forbes's reasons for publishing VP included "VP is notable!", which we do not know, and as you indicate, do not care about either. Note that publications and appearances typically include comments about other work, eg, a TV appearance might be prefaced by a brief resume. Choor monster (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There aren't nearly as many irrelevant smokescreens as there was two years ago, but enough. If someone can show me where a subject's birth date being available matters is part of the GNG, then I'll take note of that. Beyond that, the GNG has a very simple requirement: that a subject be discussed in significant detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources. That standard was met for this article two years ago and notability isn't any more transitory than it was. Ravenswing 11:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a strong inclusionist, so I'm fairly shocked to be in the minority on this one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, people throw the "Deletionist!" slur at me all the time, so it happens ... Ravenswing 22:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that standard was NOT met in the previous AfD. There was no "keep" conclusion or even a "no consensus". The discussion was simply closed as a train wreck. But if it had been evaluated as a discussion, without counting the ISPs, the result might well have been "delete". MelanieN (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rather don't recall saying anything about the standard "being met in the AfD." I said that the standard was met two years ago. I believed then, and do now, that sufficient reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail had been produced. I agree that a simple head count of non-ISPs showed a majority vote for Delete, back then, and that it's quite common for closing admins to rule on head count over policy, but that doesn't change the facts. Ravenswing 08:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reading the current article, which may be improved relative to when this AFD started, it seems to me that notability is established with reliable sources. I happen to think that authoring any of the "X for Dummies" type of books, which i perceive to be quite influential, is pretty significant on its own. It's hard to be the official-type spokesperson at the level of explaining things to dummies, it is not easy. But other sources in the article count more for Wikipedia-notability. Also, for what it's worth, i came here as a regular wikipedia editor participating often in AFDs, from visiting today's new AFDs, and I was unaware of this person and all previous controversy. --doncram 23:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability established through source improvements since the start of this AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have low standards and this article is not meeting them. If it is kept, most of the content here needs to be deleted for being promotional. For me to vote keep, I would want to see 2-3 sources which have as their subject the subject of this article. Passing mentions do not count, and instances of this person being asked to give an opinion in her field do not count. Wikipedia requires only a little journalism about the subjects of its articles, and if those sources exist, they are not being made clear here and are being mixed with promotional content which should be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Since it has been mentioned as a hypothetical for the 1st AfD, should a head count be done when closing this AfD, it should be noted that it is 6 to 7, not 4 to 7 as the Stats thus far show. Thanks. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable as an author -- even her book in the Dummmies series has only 117 library holdings, which is quite low for this series. The various other journalism is relatively minor. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Libraries throw away and sell books all the time. As far as I can see, it is not possible to check what the level of holdings for a given book was on any particular date in the past. "Worldcat Identities" does not seem to give that information. In my view, the level of library holdings cannot be used as an argument for deletion because, unless we can check past library holdings, it is wholly incompatible with WP:NTEMP, because the level of holdings could have been higher in the past. In any event, I can't see why the point of comparison should be other books of that series rather than books in general. James500 (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that library holdings, as a measure, is not suitable for our purposes. While I have not read the particular Dummies book by Pynchon, my past experience with others in the series suggests to me that the overall quality is high.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be suitable to compare how many of this Dummies are in libraries with the other Dummies books published the same year. After this vote is over, how about a vote on Success as a Mediator For Dummies? At least merge its contents in with VP, assume this is kept? Choor monster (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It is probably a POV comparison. There are many ways you could classify a book like that. Amazon put it on a list of "bestsellers" for a particular subject area. (2) If it is a plausible redirect to the publisher it will not be eligible for deletion. Alternatively, the "For Dummies" books might conceivably be collectively notable as a series, providing another possible target. (3) We do not vote at AfD. The expression "!vote" means something different. James500 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that library holdings data needs to be evaluated , not used as a pure numerical cut-off. I said, "for books of this sort" Serious level self help books by major publishers usually have high library holding, as do books in this series. The dat of publication does have to be taken into account in connection with the nature of the book--libraries routinely delete old textbook sand children's fiction. But this book is published in 2012, and no library discard material that current. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Padilla:[edit]

Anthony Padilla: (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Ajeem95 (talk | bincang (ms) | cont) 20:18, 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 speedy keep. SK#1. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 09:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas (band)[edit]

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

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

They existed, yes, but I am not sure if they are notable. What do other users think? Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 20:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They had a number one single in NZ with "Crawl". I have added a Hung Medien reference to verify the chart information. Sure, the article could do with a lot more love, but the band is certainly notable. Adabow (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:BAND, which reads:

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

"2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."

Notice that it reads "may be notable" and not "is notable", but I think in the practice we use any of those WP:BAND criteria to determine whether a musician or band is notable or not, and there is nothing subjective about the second criterion. As Adabow proved, they had two singles that charted in the official New Zealand chart, including a #1, and an album, too. I will try to add some more sources. Dontreader (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have added several sources. I now believe that Atlas meets the first criterion for musicians and ensembles:

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."

Regards, Dontreader (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets multiple criteria of WP:NBAND. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• These improvements are very good news. Then let's withdraw the nomination. Thank you all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:32, 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese medicine Network Pharmacology[edit]

Traditional Chinese medicine Network Pharmacology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree. Judging from Google Scholar, it may also be violating COI. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable, promotional, OR, and COI inspired. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Appears to be one scientist's work that is being blown up here as WP:PROMO. Most of the article is WP:SYN and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your advice. It is my first time to write a wikipedia, I am still learning to be objective and unbiased. I write this wiki page because almost everyone knows TCM in China, but it is lack recognized in US (I am now studying in Boston). So I think the page should not be deleted speedily, but we can improve it together and contribute to human knowledge. (PS: To get more information, an article on wall street journal introduced TCM (in the external link). There are also reference papers related.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikang Liu (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shikang Liu a couple of things. First this is not a speedy deletion discussion, but rather, a standard deletion discussion. It will run awhile, and then someone will review all the !votes and decide what to do. Secondly, the article is not about Traditional Chinese Medicine (we already have an article on that) but rather is a mash-up between very contemporary ideas about network analysis, the "holistic" ideas of many traditional medicines, and the messiness of natural product pharmacology. I see how the mashup makes sense, but there is very little literature on it; i think the subject of the article is too new to have a Wikipedia article. And the writing of the article itself is a lot of synthesis, which we don't do here. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Thanks. I see.Shikang Liu(User talk:Shikang Liu) 03:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, that's a very good, and sympathetic, analysis. Some day this might gain enough traction to become notable enough for an article here, but I don't think that day has arrived. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because what sourced material there is in the article could go into existing articles, although it is not clear that even the sourced material is useful.Desoto10 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks notability. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is merely an extension of the term traditional Chinese medicine and I suspect that it does not contribute to human knowledge in any sense. Other than that the title capitalisation is awkward and wrong. Chhandama (talk) 10:29, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Gronauer[edit]

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

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. He has played on the German National team, but not in any major international competitions. The qualifiers for the WBC are not part of the actual tournament and I dont feel that the players in the qualifying rounds should get automatic notability. Regardless, not enough coverage in independent sources to qualify for GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC) I'll withdraw this nomination based on his appearing in the World Cup, which I wasn't aware of since it wasnt in the article... Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's played in a LOT of international tournaments: The 2005 European Championship, the 2007 European Cup, the 2007 European Championship, the 2007 Baseball World Cup. I consider the European tournaments notable enough to merit an article, but his World Cup participation definitely puts him over the top. Since he's a German ballplayer (a rarity), he's probably been the subject of a bunch of articles that would help him pass GNG. I'll see what I can find. EDIT: Yeah, there's a bunch of stuff, especially German-language links. Alex (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The European championships are not major international events considering that baseball doesnt receive much attention in that part of the world and the players/teams there are not at the level of the other international competitions, we shouldnt be giving a pass to everyone who competes there. Spanneraol (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Major" is subjective in that case. I find them to be of note, you don't. It's cool. Alex (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also found these: [5], [6]. He was also interviewed for the book The Bus Leagues Experience, though I don't know how much of the book is focused on him as I only have access to an abstract and not the whole thing. Alex (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 22:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shinsenkai Karate[edit]

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

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

Unsourced article about a martial arts style that appears to consist entirely of one school in the UK. There is no indication of notability, appears to be original research, and was probably written by an SPA with a COI. This probably could have been speedied, but I thought I'd put it up for discussion. Papaursa (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability and fails to meet WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Deb. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ilott[edit]

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

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

non-notable WP:ACTORBIO with only one feature role. For now WP:TOOSOON. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Delete it now. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously fails WP:NACTOR. Not even WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - I tagged the article under CSD A7 but the creator of the article removed it[7] himself. No indication of notability.Iniciativass (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - done it. Deb (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Deb per CSD A7, "No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event)". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gaminara[edit]

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

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

non-notable WP:ACTORBIO with only one low billed role. For now WP:TOOSOON. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator seems to be right, I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 22:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Bell[edit]

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

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

Unable to find any coverage of the subject of this BLP in any reliable sources. There are claims to notability withing the page but am unable to verify any of them. J04n(talk page) 14:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 14:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Looks like notability comes from father and grandfather. Participating at programmes like "Aquí hay tomate" does not take (nor give) much. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless some sources can be found indicating notability. Article is completely unsourced at the moment (so, as a BLP, could be deleted right now). No indication of what the size or importance of her parts in the various films she is claimed to have acted in, or of the notability of her various record releases. And what is meant by "performing graphic novels"? Article seems to be a translation from the Spanish-language Wikipedia article (but it too is entirely unsourced). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUYhEZCYaB0 This AfD actually reminds me of another AfD, [8]. Like her, Marcia Bell "is at least a little bit interesting. And maybe slightly tragic. But probably not Wikipedia material". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet GNG. A cursory search found no reliable third-party sources. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any reliable sources that establish notability. I looked on Spanish Wikipedia Marcia Bell and an article exists there but with no reliable sources in Spanish. --I am One of Many (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It is easily argued that every celebrity wedding passes the GNG because of the sheer amount of coverage but, as DGG indicates, that does not mean that therefore they ought to be split from the main article and treated separately. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Chimanlal[edit]

Marriage of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Chimanlal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

This article was called Jashodaben once and was turned into redirect to Narendra Modi as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben (19 June 2014). The martial status of Modi and his estranged wife Jashodaben became a WP:SENSATION, when he revealed it. Before the grand disclosure in election, the yellow media were always vying for an interview with Modi's "secret" wife. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that this article represents scandal mongering, and unfit to be an Encyclopedia article. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not this again. This marriage is given adequate coverage in the parent article of Modi, no need for another article. Cowlibob (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject of the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines as it has received coverage in reliable sources repeatedly. Indian sources cited in this article include The Times of India, India Today and The Hindu, none of which should be called yellow journalism as these are among the most reputable English language news sources that India publishes. Outside of India, the British BBC, the Canadian The Globe and Mail, and the United States The Washington Post are cited for their coverage of this topic. The earliest cited work was in OPEN in 2009 and the latest is from this month, so with a range of coverage over years I feel that this topic should not be excluded for being a WP:SENSATION. In the article on the prime minister, the topic of his marriage has never had more than one paragraph of coverage, so this is not already covered in the parent article and it would be WP:UNDUE to merge this content there because there is enough information here for a standalone article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Firstly I appreciate the work you've done on attempting to write this article but let's compare the content of this article to how it is covered in the main article. Main article: Modi's marriage was first confirmed during the 2014 election, it was a child marriage based on their caste, it wasn't consummated, they were soon estranged, Modi pursued an itinerant life.

What's added in this article: Trivial comments on opposition parties filing charges which is commonplace for Indian politics, soap opera like content like Modi returning having an argument with his parents about the marriage and leaving. A paragraph on Jashodaben early life which I presume is from the previous Afd'ed article on her. A commentary section which is largely derived from an opinion piece, includes a quote from Modi's sister, speculation on why he would hide the marriage and an opposition leader's joke comment. Very superficial.

What new insight is given by this article? What could potentially be saved from this article is an article generally on the importance of "celibacy in Indian politics" which the marriage could being used as an example of many others but I fear even that will be prone to fluff and turn into an essay. Cowlibob (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is brilliantly argued! It seems Wikinews would be a good place to put articles like this. Perhaps we should a section on "Wikipedia is not Wikinews" somewhere? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob I took information which was covered in reliable sources and made this article. If this article contains trivial information then it is because newspapers and magazines have decided that this information is worth distributing. I suppose that the answer to "What new insight is given by this article?" is "Whatever insight is given by the repeated continual coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources." I compiled the article because the usual rule is that if a topic passes WP:GNG then it can have a Wikipedia article, and I thought this topic passed that criteria. I am not sure what more I could say, because almost always in AfD passing GNG is enough to keep an article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: As my statement above had said this topic is already well covered in the main article, Narendra Modi. The "extra material" added in this article does not justify a separate article. Simply passing GNG does not justify an unneeded content fork. Cowlibob (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: I agree that the topic is well covered in the main article. This information is much too detailed to go there, though.

WP:N says that a subject which passes GNG is presumed to merit its own article. I am not sure what more that I can say, because I am expecting this AfD to be decided by whether this subject meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject meets the general notability guidelines and have significant coverage in reliable sources as well as @Bluerasberry: is wise and knowledgeable enough about the policies of Wikipedia hence his hardwork in improving the article should not be wasted and his comment should be considered while reviewing the AfD. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect to Narendra Modi, although the title is not a reasonable search term) as per issues of WP:SENSATION, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT. This article is a perfect example of WP:LARDING (the essay needs to be written) in which instead of summarizing secondary sources (as a encyclopedia is supposed to do), editors scrape every possible minor mention of a topic and add excessive verbiage to make the result look "encyclopedic" in length, if not in content. To give a specific example: This Caravan article covers Narendra Modi's marriage in 119 words (in a 17,858 word profile). Yet, somehow magically its contents have been expanded to 162 words and a separate section in the current version of the wikipedia article (and yes, I excluded the sole sentence in the section that cited another source, before counting the words). Ditto for a flippant suggestion by an opposition MP that Jashodaben be awarded India's highest civilian honour, which gets a paragraph of its own. To summarize my !vote: the encyclopedic details of the article can and should be adequately summarized in the Narendra Modi article. The rest is fluff with obvious WP:BLP1E issues (for Jashodaben Chimanlal, not Modi). Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC) (Fixed a couple of typos Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

@Abecedare: This simply mean you failed to find the independent sources or not aware of WP:INDAFD, you should have a look at the custom search engine here. You should be aware that even poorly sourced article can be notable it doesn't mean it can be deleted. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare I count differently. The passages are below, and in my counting, the source material was 275 words and I reduced this to 162 words. "LARDING" would be a bad thing but I feel that the content here is a summary of the sources cited.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had counted the words in the "His parents had...uncertain families behind" paragraph in the Caravan article, but even the extended extracts, with discussion of Modi's sanyas and his work in a canteen, doesn't change my substantive point. Essentially we differ in our editorial judgment on what is the appropriate level of detail in a secondary source versus a tertiary source, and whether WP:GNG is a substitute for the requisite editorial judgment. IMO wikipedia errs on the issue sometimes, and when the error concerns trivialities (eg, Invitations to the first inauguration of Barack Obama) it is best to let it go. However when it concerns issues of BLP, like in a properly sourced and GNG compliant (yet unencyclopedic) article on Michelle Obama's arms or this particular AFD, we need to be more vigilant about what writing an encyclopedia means. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can think of remarkably few marriages in all of human history (as close as possible, in fact, to exactly none as I can get without falling afoul of the "never say never" rule) that would actually warrant a standalone encyclopedia article on the marriage itself, separate from the biographical articles about the bride and/or groom — and, indeed, as far as I can tell we appear not to have standalone articles about any other individual marriage in the history of human marriage. And I'm not seeing any strong evidence that this one is so hugely significant as to warrant being the first time we've ever done such a thing, either. We cover marriages in the BLPs of the individual people who got married, not in separate content fork articles where the marriage itself is the topic. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The marriage of Figaro ? :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject is notable, demonstrated by sources. Everyking (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt The discussion on Jashodaben is getting tedious. As mentioned above (and in every other AfD on her), she is a WP:BLP1E and this event is WP:SENSATION. The 'for' camp have come up with no new reasons why the article should stay, whereas the 'against' camp have consistently had solid reasons for its exclusion. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is well enough sourced that it should be included somewhere, and meets the GNG. The re-scoping has nicely defined that the article to not be a BLP1E, it should not now attract information on every part of the woman's life. It is an appropriate spinout of the PM because the detail is decidedly tangential. Yes, this is an unusual case. Rarely does a such a notable marriage involve one person who has never been public. If not to be kept as a standalone article, merging is appropriate and deletion is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many good reasons have been already presented. Subject is not significant enough have its own article. The relevant information is already present in Modi's own article. Modi is a high profile politician and everything related to him will get lot of coverage, but that won't make them independently notable. Moreover, the point of contention in Indian politics is Modi hiding his marital status not Jashodaben or his marriage with Jashodaben.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 11:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG. May not be as well-known to those in the US or Britain as more local political nonsense, but nonetheless has adequate coverage. Perceived "triviality" is especially problematic as a criterion given that it falls outside of English Wikipedia editors' usual interest areas ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 17:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This split of one aspect of someone's personal life into a separate article is never a good idea. A bio article should be comprehensive for at least the person life; people expect to find it in one place. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inexplicable split of one small aspect of subject's like, possibly as a way of getting a DYK hook on the subject onto Main Page. EEng (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non notable run of the mill topic per consensus.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Room games in Orientation Camps for University Freshmen in Hong Kong[edit]

Room games in Orientation Camps for University Freshmen in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not seam like an encyclopedic topic. This is simply not notable. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - utterly run of the mill school orientation ice breakers. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - However room games are indeed significant in being a part of Hong Kong's universities culture and it does arouse social attention therefore this article certainly has its value.Averylamx (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital-Logic-Design[edit]

Digital-Logic-Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability concerns. The article has no references and the product name make them a bitch to search for as it a common title in textbooks etc. SpinningSpark 11:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Article was created by an SPA with a name similar to the software developer, so likely promotional.Dialectric (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sources do not indicate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, this page has been moved to Digital Logic Design. SpinningSpark 12:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 15:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Cassell, Jr.[edit]

Warren Cassell, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

sourcing dependent on WP:BLPPRIMARY WP:BLPSPS WP:BLPSELFPUB 2 books are self-published, sourcing is largely primary. (edited by SOCK of banned account User:Morning277, created by suspected SOCK/MEAT per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez) Widefox; talk 10:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I'll be happy to help resolve the issue - all unreliable and primary sources that you mentioned have been removed. With regard to publishing self-published books what exactly is the issue? Caribbeanbio (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability - he's not a published author, but a self-published one. That's an issue for notability. Widefox; talk 02:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that the article's notability was based on him publishing a book. The young man should be given at least some credit for writing for Entrepreneur_(magazine) regularly and featured by The_Root_(magazine) as well as named Caribbean Entrepreneur of the Year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribbeanbio (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Caribbeanbio (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on that. (I was thinking WP:RS). Current sources fall short of passing WP:AUTHOR / WP:JOURNALIST 1-4. We should both keep to notability guidelines, and far from WP:ILIKEIT / give credit. Widefox; talk 04:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO he falls in the lines of being notable. Failing to see why he is not considered to be notable. I do agree with you in terms of some of the content and references in the article may not be along the lines of Wikipedia's guidelines. This does not mean that the entire article should be deleted. Caribbeanbio (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much describes WP:TOOSOON, a reason to delete, especially a BLP. Widefox; talk 14:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a 15 year old kid in high school who started a small greeting card venture. With money provided by his parents, he dabbles in the stock market. He is ambitious and seems talented at generating local human interest stories in a few Carribean publications. However, he is not notable at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. He appears to be a local kid with potential, not notable at this point, irrespective of the sourcing issues. More WP:NOT#NEWS / LOCALNEWS than encyclopedic content. Widefox; talk 02:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete coverage is extremely local and writeup is highly promotional. Then there is the undeclared COI editing in violation of the TOU [9]. Note I was asked to comment on this [10]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Truly appreciate you fulfilling my request to add to the discussion. Caribbeanbio (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin: User:Morning277, and several other editors with either confirmed or suspected (with overwhelming behavioural evidence) have edited the article without declaring paid editing (which, if recent, violates the new TOU). Widefox; talk 14:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The authorship is not significant; the entrepreneurship might conceivably be, but the award cannot be taken as a significant award without additional evidence--I cannot find that anyone else who has received the award has an article in WP. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 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 keep. I think there is sufficient consensus for this. I note that it's not a BLP, as one of the delete comments suggested. I urge Tokyogirl79 to keep track if further semi-potection is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Muhibullah Allahabadi[edit]

Shaikh Muhibullah Allahabadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Ajeem95 (talk | bincang (ms) | cont) 08:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and help me to improve it. Some people write their requests of article as if it were a stub. I can't believe we did not have this article of an important (I guess also notable) sufi thinker while we have so many pages on Islam and violence. Strange enough... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Restoring the AfD to its original state. @Usaidfarooqui:, please do not blank the page and/or replace the text with article information in an attempt to keep the page from getting deleted. Not only will it not work, but it comes across as vandalism and could run the risk of you getting blocked if you continue doing this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I am finding evidence of someone by this name in texts like this: [11], which refers to him by the additional name of Sheikh Ibn Arabi II. I'm unsure if this is the same person or not, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough hits in google books to meet GNG. Probably more hits in Urdu or Arabic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to meet notability standards. Article reads like a personal essay, and per BLP should be cut drastically if it is retained, since it has so few ILC.Onel5969 (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969:, You just caught the hijacked version by Usaid again. He's notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A prominent scholar. A Google Books Search, preview available in English shows plenty of commentary even without spelling variants. The article could use improvement, but that is a different issue. There is no shortage of sources. No reason for the nomination was given. There is no valid reason. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the heads up Dr. Blofeld! Changing my opinion to keep.Onel5969 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Starting yesterday, a lot of reliable sources were added with proper formatting. I think this was a case of an article about a notable subject just being too fanpage-ish and poorly written at first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've semi'd the page for 24 hours since there has been some repeated efforts to add unsourced, non-neutral, and copyvio material to the article. I know that we typically don't like to do this while an article is at AfD, but the attempts to re-add the material has been fairly extensive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker^talk 22:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences[edit]

Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A listful of red links based only on the official webpage of our subject. Let's discuss to put TNT under the building to blow it off and then make a shorter article (without the red links for not notable items) based on third party reliable sources.Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A high level government agency going back over 60 years. Instead of proposing TNT, the nominator should instead use a machete on the existing article. A Google Books search shows that the agency's publications are widely cited in academic works about Southeast Asia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, got no machete. I have been criticized for removing WP:OR chunks from articles and try to avoid attracting reactions now. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Please wait for me to repair/complete/fix them. Newone (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, afd is not a tool for clean-up. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 22:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Horton (exercise instructor)[edit]

Tony Horton (exercise instructor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The sources are pure press releases, and inadequate for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems only notable for P90X. Perhaps redirect. This HuffPo article is about himself more specifically, but it's just summarizing his Reddit AMA (and it's HuffPo). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BLP with ref 1 being PR. Suggest redirect. Widefox; talk 11:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep P90X is a widely known fitness program and Tony's participation is a central. It's well attested in the pop culture of healthy people [[12]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.162.242 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if his product is notable, this title might redirect there, but the person himself does not appear to be notable. --bonadea contributions talk 16:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - utterly run of the mill trainer. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Perhaps they are foolish, but all other editors disagree with DGG's keep. The lone dissent cannot carry the day, and though reliable "outside" coverage is claimed to exist, other editors disagree. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Crabtree (fictional polymath)[edit]

Joseph Crabtree (fictional polymath) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While yes, we all understand this is a hoax/fiction, and that doesn't constitute a reason for deletion in and of itself, I can find absolutely no coverage of this topic outside of content aimed solely at fueling or sustaining the "myth". I consider these sources as primary (since they perpetuate the myth, they are part of the topic), and thus this subject seems to fail even the most basic interpretation of WP:GNG. The fact that it is hard to tell reality from fiction apart even when reading the article is damning; we also have a painting in the article and nobody knows who the heck that painting is of, or by. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable hoax. This is an on-going in-joke that has been perpetrated for 60 years now. Clearly, the article needs to be rewritten to describe the hoax, not the man, but as a long-running hoax that has spawned two volumes and has involved some fairly notable scholars over the years, I believe the concept merits inclusion. I was going to engage in a major rewrite of the article; perhaps I'll create a draft instead and submit that to this discussion for alternative consideration. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I proffer this draft as a proposed alternative to the present version. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as not notable. It seems to be an in joke among a small group, a group with the talent and enthusiasm to build this up, but still just a small group at one particular academic institution. And that applies to the draft too; lack of notability isn't fixed by rewriting. To address the notability concerns it needs proper sources, reliable ones independent of the subject. in this case independent of the perpetrators of this hoax.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd be quite happy to say 'yes' to this if the referencing were more independent. And, while I'm no art expert, I'm not quite happy with that picture being labelled as a Henry Raeburn portrait of Crabtree. Even allowing for the apparent poor condition, and the fact that it is not going to be Crabtree anyway (unless the artist was one of the instigators of the hoax), it hasn't got the character, life and style of a Raeburn. It looks more like a cheap small town portrait of a small town lawyer. I could be wrong - but Crabtree it ain't. Peridon (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like Wikidan's version better. That image still needs relabelling though. (If that can be done?) Peridon (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the image, you will see it is currently under review at PUF, and you are welcome to comment there. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I like my version better too (duh!), and if the article is kept, I will certainly make the needed edits, but I'm leaning toward delete in agreement with JohnBlackburne's assessment: although this hoax is certainly long-running (60 years now!) it really has not gotten any significant coverage. The folks at UCL appear to be doing their best to keep this joke to themselves. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable inside joke. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. UCL and the Crabtree Foundation are entitled to their in-joke, but Wikipedia is not here to help them spread it. The article was originated and has been largely maintained by two near SPAs, Drbrizzle (talk · contribs) and JoeCrabtree (talk · contribs). It was originated by Drbrizzle in this version, which was a hoax presenting Crabtree as real (the word "fictional" was not added to the title until 2013); and even when forced to admit that is fiction, he is still trying to resist the substitution of "invented" for "revealed" in the lead sentence. If we are to have an article at all, it should be more like WikiDan's version, but I agree with John Blackburne - it is an academic in-joke, a long-running one and not a bad one, but it has not produced the level of independent comment that would constitute notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is sufficient evidence that it is a notable hoax -- clearly WikiDan's version is preferable, and should be substituted, butthis one isn;t bad enough to need deletion first. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I'm missing something, WikiDan's version still doesn't seem to provide any out-of-universe coverage of the hoax, which would be necessary to demonstrate notability. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better sourcing can be found, however, I will offer up [13] as being one such source, reliable and out-of-universe, but only a sentence or two. Does anything have anything else? --j⚛e decker^talk 01:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep: see WP:MUSICBIO, #2 Drmies (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Longoria[edit]

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

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

For such an important musician (according to the article), you should expect more than 267 unique hits (including namesakes). In my opinion, fails WP:GNG. Looks like selfpromo. The Banner talk 16:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You made a comment about 267 unique hits...what is that in reference to?

I don't even follow this type of music and I'd heard of him, so I'm leaning toward notability, but I'd like to compare this to the music guidelines and hear what others have to say before I make a solid vote. Bali88 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bud4music (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)I have contributed several parts of this page over the past few years as I am a Latin Jazz lover and have followed this artist and many others. He is certainly notable in music. He has a US national tv special (PBS) and many Billboard charted songs.I have deleted recent additions I made to the page that did not have citations, yet I know to be true from several others I have interviewed. I do not have any affiliation to the artist other than a fan of his work and the genre.Bud4music (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Chrisdunbar2007 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)I made changes in edits to awards section that seemed poorly setup- not in AP or wiki style- but content is sound in my opinion. As I read comments here- subject Longoria is certainly a notable musician in this genre. I noted that some recent content is overly wordy and in too much detail for Wikipedia and may need even further editing. Chrisdunbar2007 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)ChrisDunbar2007[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) 01:26, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Comment - my first question is what are you referring to by 267 unique hits? I get 25 million hits in Google, so I'm not sure where your looking. Not to say many of them are any use at all. JTdale ^Talk 20:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you do a Google Search on "David" and "Longeria", I get about 27 million hits. But when searching on "David Longoria" I only get 53 200 hits. The 267 show up when you take a closer look and that includes several namesakes. Like "David Longoria Insurance". The Banner talk 23:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes multiple criteria of wp:musicbio, including 1, 2, 11, 12, probably more. The blatant advertising isn't a reason to delete, it can be stubified to bland facts and rebuilt if need be. Earflaps (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 22:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Flower Under Dark Shadow[edit]

The Flower Under Dark Shadow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The film appears to fail the notability requirements of WP:FILM. Pichpich (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sympathetic but I can find nothing at all. Delete. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete Film was release two weeks ago, and so far... no coverage. Fails WP:NF. If it does gain requisite coverage, the article can be undeleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unfortunately there just isn't any coverage out there for this film. There may be coverage in another language, but the lack of non-primary English language sources suggests that there is not at this time. Like Schmidt said, we can always re-create it when/if more coverage becomes available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are references about the films. and film is also a low budget short film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dv navi (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC) — Dv navi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• @Dv navi: The issue is not about a low budget nor about whether or not the article is sourced. The concern is whether or not its current sourcing is suitable to show requisite notability. Blog postings by filmmaker Gabbar Punjabi himself [14][15] do not, nor do the 30-second and 60-second promo clips he posted to YouTube. Please study WP:RS. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:48, 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 no consensus. There certainly is no consensus to delete. Album has been released; perhaps more references will become available soon. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Hours (EP)[edit]

After Hours (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Future release. Don't add albums before we know they'll be notable. WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - the creator redirected this title to a new, identical article at After Hours (Glamour of the Kill EP). I'll add the AfD template there too. BUT - the articles were created with maintenance tags dating to Oct 2014, which I read as this being a recreation of some sort. Could an admin check to see if a page has already been made and deleted, and deal with it accordingly? Thanks, ansh666 20:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again, to After Hours (Glamour of the Kill album). ansh666 20:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now the article is back at the second page, though the original (named in the AfD) is now a redirect to an appropriate title. I guess, let that one stand and redirect the others to match. ansh666 19:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article now has references from antiMusic, Rock Sound Magazine, Metal Hammer, Kerrang!, Bring the Noise UK and BBC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All but one of the refs are bad or trivial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - At a minimum, the article should be redirected to Glamour of the Kill. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That shouldn't be necessary. Neither "After Hours (EP)" or "After Hours (Glamour of the Kill EP)" are especially plausible redirects. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Fails to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUMS. As pointed out, the sources are unacceptable, being promotional in nature or (in the case of the BBC mention) trivial. An argument could definitely be made for this violating WP:PROMOTION too, given that it's a fan-created article pushing a fan-funded album. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Redirects are cheap. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough references to push it over the cusp of notability. It's been covered by most of the big alt rock mags already, which means those magazines will inevitably write big fat reviews the week after its release on November 17. Come back for assessment in December, after the reviews like this have moved to sputnik music and such. Earflaps (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references are trivial and/or promotional, thus not indicating notability. And it would be insane to keep an article because an editor believes that there may be references available in the future. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, waiting three days is insane? We must define the word differently, since Wikipedia isn't in a hurry. Also, what's your opinion on this reference? I assume there are others, haven't gone through more than about four google search pages. Earflaps (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much of the review. Hit The Floor magazine clearly don't have much of an inclusion criteria other than "if you email it to us and we have the time, we'll review it", although if a band is willing to pay, they do "offer a fast track review service". Not what I would call a reliable source. As for WP:DEADLINE, it is only an opinion piece and one I personally loath because of how many times I've seen people use it to claim articles should be kept on the off-chance that their subject suddenly becomes notable in the future. (I'm not saying you're deliberately misusing it like that, just to be clear). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted. About the magazine piece, I personally feel it's notable but then I'm not basing that on first-hand experience with the magazine, just impression. About their review criteria, I'm pretty sure most online music publications will write a review if they get a promo CD from a major band (and I'm sure money to the editor doesn't hurt), so I'm not quite clear what separates this magazine from, say, a Vice Media website like Noisey. Either way, still could use better sources, not going to argue there. I'll try and do some research today, help always appreciated. Earflaps (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the article should not have been created until it was notable. It is inappropriate. Also, the current references don't meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Pyaasa. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Woh Kaise Log The[edit]

Jane Woh Kaise Log The (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable song in my opinion. Please tag it for expansion. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Without any references to suggest its notability independent of the movie in which it appears, I think the title should be directed to Pyaasa. Deli nk (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Redirect Combined coverage would be more useful to readers than a 1-sentence stub. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:22, 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 merge to Degrassi: The Next Generation. Merge it is. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nuñez[edit]

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

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

Non-notable charater, article contains 0 sources and tons of trivial content. Gloss 21:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, interesting article about a non-real, fictional, person. And lots of good sources for narrower search parameter adding word "Degrassi": Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are not many sources there with actual information about the character, with about one article having actual content. The character doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Gloss 22:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Degrassi: The Next Generation- plausible search term, but insufficient coverage to warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This needs a major cleanup but there are references available ([16][17][18][19]). Tchaliburton (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find, those are it. Can we really keep an article with only three references available to source the entire page's material, especially when the character seems to not pass notability guidelines? Gloss 22:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 00:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:TNT and notability. I don't see one source there. Wikipedia article space is not a coffee shop where we tell our friends some film we watched. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Television characters do not automatically qualify for separate standalone articles just because they exist — if you cannot add reliable sources which provide real-world context for why the character is a notable topic in an encyclopedia, then all they really warrant is inclusion in a list of characters. But that's not what this is — it's just an in-universe summary of plots she was involved in, which provides no demonstration whatsoever of why this belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a Degrassi fansite. Delete or merge into a character list unless real sources demonstrating real notability can actually be added. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep, or merge I see an opinion above that we cannot keep an article with only three references. That's a much stricter requirement than the GNG, which at most requiees two. I've heard it suggested it should be 3, but I have never before heard it suggested it should be >3. If that's the arguemnt for deletion, the conclusion would be keep as adequately referenced. There may however be good arguments for merging into a list. DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker^talk 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Cookson[edit]

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

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL, actress is not notable. Article lacks the sources to proves her notability, not a single of her films have been released yet. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Unref'd BLP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a couple of sources to eliminate the unreferenced BLP issue, so this AfD can run its full course. This is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but there is coverage about her, e.g. [20][21][22]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I can appreciate the TOOSOON viewpoint, but the female lead in Kingsman is established and likely her breakthrough role. Deleting this now, only to have to re-write it again when the film generates public interest is just pointless make-work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Added refs are ok. Szzuk (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are not now enough sources to establish WP:BASIC. I am One of Many (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. I agree that this article was created too soon, but there's just enough coverage to at least make her notability debatable. I don't like "crystal ball" arguments that depend on upcoming sources of notability, but reliable sources have taken note of her casting. Plus, Screen International profiled her as a "star of tomorrow", which is something. Even if every film is canceled and her career never materializes, she's still got that, which is more of a claim to notability than many new articles make. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Seeing the many keep votes (or opinions?) I will adventure to say delete per WP:TOOSOON. It looks like she is going to be famous in 2015 but for what? For leading roles as an actress or maybe -I hope and pray not- because she had a car accident or something like that? I wouldn't hurry to make articles for "future notables". --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. Some of the opinions above that state it might be too soon, but keep the article so that it does not need to be rewritten in the future seem to miss the point that that argument is an invalid argument in AfDs. If you think she will become notable in the future then have the article deleted and moved to a Userspace. It does not belong in Wikipedia if it is WP:TOOSOON. Also who says she will become notable - anything can happen in the meantime -- WP:CRYSTAL. Please also see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL re AfDs. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep Sufficient WP:RS to establish basic notability without WP:TOOSOON problems. --Jersey92 (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm just not seeing it. (1) To address the question of GNG/BIO: A few announcements of her casting, but doesn't every casting announcement of a high-profile movie get press in trade magazines like Variety (which indeed just reports that she was cast and little more). The Stars of Tomorrow piece is ok, but again brief and I'm suspect of any short bio that prominently gives her manager's contact information. (2) But here's the bigger question. Let me assume, for a moment, that these sources are enough to scrape by GNG. That doesn't automatically mean there should be a stand-alone article if there's just not enough to write about. What can it say based on these sources -- what can it grow into based on these sources, without turning into a promotional piece filled with quotes and primary sourcing? That she is cast in these two movies; she was named a Star of Tomorrow? If there's not more to write, but we know that there will be, then that's precisely what WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:TOOSOON are for. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important actress, starring in films with Michael Caine, numerous references easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient coverage, major roles. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amak-3d[edit]

Amak-3d (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems like a non-notable website. I almost nominated this for WP:A7 but there is a claim that it is "the largest privately owned gaming website" which is a dubious but not blatantly false claim of significance. Sammy1339 (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The website appears to have been ignored entirely by independent third-party sources required for notability. Fails WP:WEBCRIT on all counts. Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a new website, sourced only to its Alexa rating (beyond 12 millionth). No evidence found of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per AllyD and Northamerica George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 12:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the website does not meet WP:NWEB as stated above, the page is not popular or is covered by reliable news websites. ///EuroCarGT 21:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to the above, the topic has no 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 ♔ 15:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources are not provided to establish notability and they seem to not exist. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shudhu Gaan Geye Porichoy[edit]

Shudhu Gaan Geye Porichoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Strong Keep. Freshly created article about a very prominent Bengali song from 1970s, which is still popular and venerated after four decades and often regarded as signature or identifying song of Sabina Yasmin as done here, one of the most prominent artists of Bangladesh. The AfD is drive-by, in particular, as it seems, Tamravidhir may be relentlessly stalking (pardon my wording) Sadman Sakibzz and AfD-ing all articles created by him. Bangladesh deletion sorting page is filled with AfD's from mostly one user. It is up to question, whether all articles created by Sadman Sakibzz satisfy strong notability; but it is evident that Tamravidhir is not spending much time in investigating before boldly putting up for deletion discussion. Furthermore, she is explicitly threatening to ban. I am not sure if it is a case of Wikihounding, but one party may very well perceive it so. – nafSadh did say 21:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:32, 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 speedy keep. Section 1. (Nominator withdraws noination and no other reccomendations for deletion) (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Eisenach[edit]

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

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

Apparently non-notable economist. Yes, he's testified in a lot of courts; but where is the extended, in-depth coverage of his achievements? He has modest, non-negligible, cites on Scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 18:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

•  ????? What's going on? The entire article is blanked as a copyvio. I looked at the article it is said to copy, and do not see the copying. It either is a copyvio, or it is an AfD, but not both. And I do not see the copyvio justification. LaMona (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Duplicate Detector link I have posted on the talk page of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Comment: Notability in Wikipedia is based on in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. There are none such in the article (LinkedIn, a blog page he wrote himself, the pages of a company where he works and a school where he teaches etc.). However, I may have overlooked something: I had thought that the Jeffrey Eisenach caught up in the ethics investigation of Newt Gingrich was a different person, since there is no mention of that, of GOPAC or of the PFF in the article. But this source seems to suggest they are one and the same. If so, I would imagine that that would make him notable by our standards. Thoughts, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 20:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Keep Meets WP:BIO, he has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, such as [23] [24] [25] [26] Jinkinson talk to me 03:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (pending copyvio clearance, ofc). Agree. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination. What with the coverage of the Newt Gingrich scandal (assuming that that is in fact the same person) and the sources identified by Jinkinson, it doesn't seem there's much remaining doubt that this person is notable, so I'm withdrawing my nomination. The copyvio has been dealt with. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:22, 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 merge to Johan Neerman. a merge to Johan Neerman seems the best solution for now, with no prejudice against re-expansion to a separate article if things develop . doncram, you seem to understand the situation, so would you please do it? DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) (This also applies to Johanson3 scooters.) DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson3[edit]

Johanson3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a failed IndieGoGo project. It probably never should have been created anyway. The information that was in the article before I revised it was machine translated as well as extremely poorly sourced. I am also nominating the following related page because it is basically the exact same article:

Johanson3 scooters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you are not there to put a personal statement. Articles have all necessary proof from verified sources listed below and for your information Company has registered branding, patents and concept and manufacturing the products now.Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I would really appreciate if before editing notes or making groundless opinion you would rely on reliable sources without violating content. Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete both. The only more or less reliable source is a BBC blog, other refs are either dead or copy press releases. Lemnaminor (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson3 articles[edit]

I cannot not agree with Lemnaminor as articles have more than BBC blog. Please have a look at http://www.gizmodo.de/2014/09/09/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter.html http://www.techfieber.de/2014/08/31/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter-video/ http://goodcrowd.info/post/93407293659/belgian-transport-designer-johan-neerman-announces http://www.industrie-techno.com/le-velo-solaire-qui-veut-remplacer-la-voiture.32282 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/innovative-approach-personal-mobility-launches-111400050.html Also check company data at http://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?ondernemingsnummer=837049028 Johanson3 product holds several patents on innovation and technology. You can find this information by doing your homework on google. This proves the uniqueness of the product and its originality. Before expressing unvalid statements and give personal opinion please do your research on the subject. I would like to encourage you also to have a look at the story of this company and their background http://archives.lesoir.be/neerman-dans-le-metro_t-20000819-Z0JKRZ.html/ http://archives.lesoir.be/100-vagues-a-lames-l-irresistible-legerete-de-l-alu-les_t-20030307-Z0MWVF.html http://neerman.net You can find more information in the books, journals, printed editions and archives noted at the page of the owner of the company as it was created in 1967 and internet at that time was not so popular. Nominator Brightgalrs appears to have no expertise in the field and seems to focus on ( please follow the link) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brightgalrs which makes his statements suspicious of any decent contribution to the page - Regards, - Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson3 and related articles[edit]

I am really keen on removing AFD template and closing this discussion. For the following reasons:

• It was open for more than 7 days already and didn’t receive any negative feedback from the other editors (In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days to allow interested editors adequate time to participate)
• Written article has all necessary proof of trustworthy; also status data of the company is currently available on internet and the state website. If nominator Brightgalrs cannot find it I encourage him to have a look at http://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?ondernemingsnummer=837049028 (A "speedy keep" outcome is appropriate when the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption)
• I see just negative erroneous that they indicate that the nominator Brightgalrs has not even read the article in question.

I also would like to ask the administrator to close this discussion and relist article. Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please: don't take these discussions personally. Going through your sources:

• [27] shows that the company exists and is registered in Belgium - that in itself is not sufficient to indicate notability
• neerman.net is a primary source
• both lesoir articles do not mention Johanson3 at all
• the gizmodo and techfieber articles are largely identical and appear to be German translations of the press release announcing the company's indiegogo campaign
• the yahoo 'article' is that same press release
• goodcrowd.info allows anybody to submit articles 'in the form of a standard press release': it does not seem a reliable source
• industrie-techno.com is basically a French translation of the company's press materials. The article is placed in their design and mockup section, indicating that there is no real product yet.

That leaves the BBC blog as the only more or less RS and leads to the conclusion that this company and its proposed product are not notable. In addition, Julia Williams123 seems to be a SPA with a very close connection to the subject: this user almost exclusively edits articles on the Neerman family and companies, or inserts pictures of the Johanson3 into vaguely related articles.--Lemnaminor (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with you. LeSoir article is destined to speak about the creator behind the johanson3 series. If you do understand French you will see that the inventor has notable background by designing various transport systems in Europe which is recognized worldwide. The Name of Johan Neerman is clearly identifiable in this article. You can also follow that the same person is the creator of the range of the johanson3 e-bikes and the creator of the company. The link to Website provided proves that the company exists and in good standing. It is not a company directory that you may consider not verified it’s a government website with all data registration. Regarding articles in Gizmodo, Techfieber, Yahoo, Industrie–techno, photovoltaic and others they were all written by different editors. You can find the name of the editors. Yes indeed they all talk about johanson3 like a new way of transportation but they are not like you call identical as they are put by different editors and in different languages nothing to do with a copy of press release. All links provided above proves the information to be only of a professional nature with no personal point of view. It seems that you keep disliking professional publications for more personal reasons than professional ones as you have not read them thoroughly. Regarding comment of “not notable”. Company and product johanson3 own several international patents. Do your homework on google it will give you some more thought. Among of all reasons for deletions I cannot find any that will be related to the articles. I see just a person giving his personal views by trying to impose weak conclusions about the company. Facts are there. Apparently you did not check good enough the reliable sources that I have provided you. I understand that may be you have your personal opinion and strong feelings about and the inventor. It would be greatly appreciated if you would try not to violate content.

Regarding my close connection to the subject I’m quite happy that you understand that I write always in the same field of transportation also please note that nor Brightgalrs nor Lemnaminor (talk) have no experience in writing in the field of transportation or any close related field. See bellow

• List of predicted dates of the end of the world or similar events
• List of people who have claimed to be Jesus
• Forest swastika
• Calculator spelling
• Manhattanhenge
• Arcaicam Esperantom
• James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
• Dick Assman
• I, Libertine
• Naked Came the Stranger
• Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D
• Wilhelm scream
• Ferret legging
• Small penis rule
• Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan

Regards, - Julia Williams123

First, it doesn't really matter who actually nominates an article for deletion. Second, the references are utter crap end of story. The first sentence of the article "Johanson3 scooters are made of a range of 5 light electric stable (trikes)with 4Kw maximum that have high payload capacity and the natural extension of the pedestrian due to its high sitting position." is supported by [28] and [29] as references. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 04:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. I agree that the BBC blog counts towards notability (after having jumped through hoops to view it as BBC Worldwide is not accessible from the UK, apparently we are not part of "the world"), but by itself it is not enough to establish notability per WP:N — "multiple sources are generally expected". All the rest of the sources are company listings or PR fluff. This may be notable one day, but right now it is WP:TOOSOON.

I would also like to comment that the long diatribe by Julia Williams123 against her opponents is just not acceptable here. It is cluttering the page and doing your case no good. It is the strength of policy based arguments that count, not what articles the participants have been editing, or anything else about them personally. SpinningSpark 19:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.I don’t like to repeat myself but I would like to explain you once more regarding this issue of notability. Its notable simply because never anyone delivered a product like that before despite notes from Brightgalrs. Please note it’s not a designer’s concept or just idea. These are 5 engineered products by johanson3 company.

List of the articles listed below has nothing to do with PR fluff. They are from wellknown proven international resources. I like the way you guys critisize my article but you don’t know what you are talking about. Also regarding your comment about “diatribe by Julia Williams123 against her opponentsis just not acceptable” I consider that I have my right here like the author of the article to explain my work by adding valid arguments. If you do have an issue with innovation in mobility why using Wikipedia for it? You can complain to its inventor who owns intellectual property on his innovations. You seem to be rather desperate in trying trying to push always the same song by trying to impose personal views and issues with the topic which has nothing to do with the quality of the content of these articles which brings all the necessary proof of their reliability. Here is some statement of notability 1. This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career. I think it will be totally insain to challenge work done in the past by Johan Neerman and company Neerman Consulting which designed major transport systems worldwide. The product represents a unique accomplishment in the field as it was never creadted before. More over its patented for various technologies. Please pay attention its not passing along random gossip like you may say it’s the famous publications and reputable independent media sources. And article complies fair and balanced Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. They are not advertising a product their just tell why its notable and innovative. Before Writing just about BBC look at http://www.gizmodo.de/2014/09/09/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter.html http://www.techfieber.de/2014/08/31/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter-video/ http://www.industrie-techno.com/le-velo-solaire-qui-veut-remplacer-la-voiture.32282 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/innovative-approach-personal-mobility-launches-111400050.html Vorsatz William (October 2014). "Dreirad mit Solardach". Photovoltaik 99: 96. I hope this time I answer your questions and I dont see the point to keep going with the same idea as article contain not just BBC source. Read it carefully. If you don’t like the article or the product please note its not a reason to not recognize notability. Also the last but not the least note. Look at Notability there stated: “Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.” Please keep in mind that also. Best regards, your devoted Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Its notable simply because never anyone delivered a product like that before", that's not how Wikipedia defines notability and is not a valid argument for keeping a page. Please listen to what other people are telling you, no one is proposing deletion because they don't like the product, that is irrelevant and another pointless attack on fellow editors. Lemnaminor has already made an assessment of your sources and I am going along with that until there is some evidence to the contrary. SpinningSpark 21:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (struck duplicate !vote).Please read ones more definition of notability by Wikipedia and its connection with my subject :

1. This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career. I think it will be totally insain to challenge work done in the past by Johan Neerman and company Neerman Consulting which designed major transport systems worldwide. 2. The product represents a unique accomplishment in the field as it was never created before. More over it’s patented for various technologies. Please pay attention its not passing along random gossip like you may say it’s the famous publications and reputable independent media sources. Also the last but not the least note. Look at Notability there stated: “Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.” Please keep in mind that also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Williams123 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“Regarding pointless attack on fellow editors )))” Its what I see in my case. I just replying to justify and protect my article nothing personal. “This is a failed IndieGoGo project. It probably never should have been created anyway” Brightgalrs “In addition, Julia Williams123 seems to be a SPA with a very close connection to the subject” Lemnaminor

I see just negative erroneous and my fellow editors don’t look at the facts. Who is attacking? Best regards, your devoted Julia Williams123 — Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG and Lemnaminor's compelling analysis of the sources. Note: It appears that the same account was used to vote keeep twice. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with Lemnaminor's point. LeSoir article is destined to speak about the creator behind the johanson3 series. If you do understand French you will see that the inventor has notable background by designing various transport systems in Europe which is recognized worldwide. Following that some statement of notability This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career.

The Name of Johan Neerman is clearly identifiable in this article. You can also follow that the same person is the creator of the range of the johanson3 e-bikes and the creator of the company. The link to Website provided proves that the company exists and in good standing. It is not a company directory that you may consider not verified it’s a government website with all data registration. Regarding articles in Gizmodo, Techfieber, Yahoo, Industrie–techno, photovoltaic and others they were all written by different editors. You can find the name of the editors. Yes indeed they all talk about johanson3 like a new way of transportation but they are not like you call identical as they are put by different editors and in different languages nothing to do with a copy of press release. All links provided above proves the information to be only of a professional nature with no personal point of view. [[User:Julia Williams123 |Julia Williams123] — Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge, probably to Johan Neerman or to a new section Johan Neerman#Johanson3 and leave redirects behind, and possibly protect the redirects from editing by non-administrators. The product seems pretty cool. However it is wp:TOOSOON to be covered separately in Wikipedia, as there seem to exist only press-release-type coverage, not reliable source (wp:RS)-type reviews by others. If the product is so great (which it does look like it might be, in my non-professional opinion), then it will eventually get wp:RS type coverage. But Wikipedia needs to follow, not lead, in giving out info, and should generally state what secondary/tertiary sources say about something. The main characteristic of the product is that it has a great design, attributed to designer Johan Neerman, and asserted by Julia Williams123 above to be "a major part of his career". So, why not create a section about this great design in Johan's article. And redirect from Johanson3 to there, for now, at least until separate notability of Johanson3 becomes established. This preserves edit history, better for the record if/when notability is established. I then suggest that Julia Williams123 or other editors plan to create a future, better article in the Articles For Creation wp:AFC process, in the future, to replace the redirect, eventually, assuming reliable sources are given so that AFC editors will approve the new article. I think this is best... --doncram 00:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I agree with the "merge" suggestion. This particular product is not yet out of the starting gate, so adding the information to the page for Johan Neerman (where other products are also listed) gives it a holding place for now. Should the product gain notability, it can be separated out. LaMona (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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