< 30 September	2 October >

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 per Wikipedia:Speedy keep #1: nominator withdrew the nomination. Also, consensus was building to keep the article. (non-admin closure) - tucoxn\^talk 20:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faison Firehouse Theater[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 23:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tone was a bit promotional, but that was easily fixed through editing. Both the building (a 1909 firehouse) and the theater it currently houses are notable per WP:GNG, as demonstrated by the references in the article. Pburka (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks, Pburka, for cleaning it up and taking out anything that could be construed as opinion, etc. The article is certainly not advertising, since I have no connection or vested interest with the building or its owners. Just a space I'm familiar with that I thought deserved to be documented for general knowledge. User:Sbjoiner1
It was really just one word. Describing the founder as 'legendary' in the first sentence didn't seem appropriately encyclopedic. Everything else was pretty neutral. Pburka (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if the theatre isn't notable, the building appears to be. I'm mystified as to what the nominator's definition of advertising might be! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep as nomination withdrawn. Nomination was rather harsh. The Banner talk 14:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina A. Parisi[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG or ANYBIO. I believe this is merely a social media celebrity with no real claim of notability. J04n(talk page) 22:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 23:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced BLP and vanity page about a self-proclaimed celebrity who apparently have not received coverage outside some gossip sites/blogs. Fails GNG and any other SNG. Cavarrone 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and ANYBIO. Sloppy fansite-esque hagiography. Quis separabit? 12:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Unsourced BLP, doesn't meet WP:GNG. I ended up here after following the link from the Yorkshire Terrier article but cannot find any particular notability for her dogs either! SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above; my own sweeps did not turn up anything to help meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything reliable on her. I am One of Many (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SOFTDELETE. J04n(talk page) 00:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jat clans of Rawalpindi Division[edit]

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

Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg:

As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Jat in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Jat or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Jats." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same. Sitush (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 9 September 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 01:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a transcript of the primary source in question. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources for something to be considered notable so unless such coverage can be produced, this should be deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:42, 17 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:38, 24 September 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, postdlf (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Árni Guldborg Nielsen[edit]

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

Okay so this seems to be unotable-possibly not even real. Someone added "sources" just now (a logged off IP) which NONE are about the person. Wgolf (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm not inclined to salt the title at this time, but if anyone notices another re-creation, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll G4 and salt. Deor (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

See prior AfD here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal Creator has now changed usernames? —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wow, wasn't this already just deleted today? Cramyourspam (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes. See the link to the discussion, which I posted above. It was speedy delete for reasons noted, but article creator now changed accounts (or so it seems) and reposted. If I was not supposed to repost for AfD, sorry & please correct me... —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy close~~ - The original deletion was done out of process. Author blanking is prohibited during AFD. I had just posted to the deleting admin as a first step in route to a deletion review and would pursue that recourse if the deleting admin did not reverse his original decision. Much attribution is lost in the history of the original page that needs to be present in this article.—John Cline (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my !vote to speedy close this discussion and strike my entire comment.—John Cline (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe content of this page is different than the other, see subject headings. The other was deleted because it didn't clarify the "noteworthiness" of the book, i.e., media citations. This one documents that it was the topic of an ABC Network discussion, amongst other media in New Orleans, Phoenix, Boston, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalstudent (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to GaffAnd, no, I have no idea who posted the original page. I am a journalism student who was told if I were using Wiki to copy the page, because it might disappear. I am doing a report on Snowden and The Edward Snowden Affair is the longest book on the subject. I'm sure I'm not the only student who needs this page. I read that the page was lacking citations. They were all there (just needed to look at the references), they were just hard to find, hence the reformatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalstudent (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent, reliable references about the book. The radio interviews with the author certainly isn't independent. The "Online Media Reception" comes from blogs hosted by blogspot, therefore not reliable. Bgwhite (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment on Bgwhite's commentPure Politics isn't a blogspot site, it is a private site out of Atlanta. As for the radio interviews not being independent--a-hem, ABC New Network isn't independent? (and all the other stations nationwide that he's been on aren't either?) Aside from attempting to spin this argument and hoping no one will check your claims, you're also cherry picking the citations because you ignored the print media entirely while saying nothing of the book's being chosen by the American Book Center's 'best of' list. This is a noteworthy book which has received national media attention in several mediums.

Bgwhite first cited this book for deletion stating it wasn't published when it clearly was. He then came back and did the same stating there wasn't sufficient media attention to merit notoriety. Now that there is clear documentation, he is trying to argue the sources, which are clearly nationwide and well-recognized, i.e., ABC Network, aren't independent. Clearly this guy has a grudge about the book, if not the topic in general--citing personal/political bias, not professional reason, as his motive for action.

~~Journalstudent (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete This is just one of many books and articles written on this subject. If this book has more sells than others and/or new information that has not come out then maybe add a line to the Snowden/NSA page depending on what it is. But right now at best it could be included as a single line on another page like "Many books have been written about this including..." but again that is only if this book was a bigger seller than others or offered new information which I do not see yet. Resaltador (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Maldoror2, who is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, and who is suspected of being a Sockpuppeteer, created his account on 29 September 2014 with an edit involving the book The Edward Snowden Affair. That same day, he created the Wikipedia page devoted exclusively to said book, which is here proposed for deletion. Maldoror2's contributions to Wikipedia have been almost entirely limited to this book, its author and publisher. Moreover, User:JamesBWatson, the admin who indefinitely blocked him, has rebuked Maldoror2 thus: "Your only purpose in editing has from the start been to try to use Wikipedia as a PR medium. You have even stated yourself that you have created 'vanity' pages (your choice of word, not mine) on behalf of a publisher that you are employed by." (Emphases in original.)

Accordingly, the article in question should be deleted because:

(1) as a vanity page created by a PR professional on behalf of the book's publisher, it violates Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines; and

(2) as a vehicle for advertisement, it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) by flouting the core Wikipedia policy prohibiting promotion.

JohnValeron (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This book (from a non-notable publisher by a non-notable author) comprehensively fails the book notability criteria. There's no need to argue for deletion on the grounds that it was created by a paid PR editor. The gross deficiency of the supporting references is more than sufficient to strongly support deletion. However, their misleading and somewhat desperate nature is typical of paid-for promotional articles. The references are:

1. The author promoting himself on local radio stations. Note that contrary to the misleadingly piped link "WGNO - ABC Network 990 AM", that station has nothing to do with ABC, who sold all their radio assets to Cumulus Media in 2011. The link in the citation goes to WGSO which is owned by Northshore Radio, LLC.

2. The "extended, multi-page centerpiece expose on The Edward Snowden Affair" in Homeland Security Today was actually written by the book's author, although the citation doesn't indicate that.

3. Various non-notable blogs, one of which (Down with Tyranny) mentions the book multiple times, each time linking to the blog owner's "store" on Amazon, where he gets a cut of the sale. Plus a "staff recommendation" from a bookstore in Amsterdam.

4. The quoted "review" by "Robert Gleason, author of End of Days and The Nuclear Terrorist" is referenced to Amazon, where it was supplied as a blurb by the publisher.

5. The assertion "The book has also been cited in The Next Web" is literally a passing mention. I have yet to see any full-length reviews in any major newspaper or journal.

6. "The book climbed into the top 1,000 bestsellers before peaking at No. 4 on Amazon.com's Civil Rights category on March 4, 2014." Uh huh. Apart from the complete lack of verification, this is really grasping at straws. Its overall sales ranking on Amazon is 401,536. Compare this to the overall Amazon ranking of Greenwald's book on Snowden (2,967), which in addition has multiple major and independent press reviews and was #5 on the The New York Times Best Seller list for all non-fiction [1].

Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have struck Winner423's "Retain" below. He and Journalstudent, are confirmed sockpuppets of the article's creator, Maldoror2. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maldoror2. - Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retain~~ Voceditenore acknowledges that the ABC Network claim is valid (the hyperlink title was a typo--yet she didn't correct it on the article's page). WGNO - ABC Network 990 AM is definitely an ABC affiliate (don't take Wiki's word for it, go to the radio station's website--http://wgno.com. The ABC banner is right next to the station's title at the top of the page).

If we are going to be fair, this alone qualifies the book as being notable under criterion No. 1 by Wikipedia standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#Criteria

The Homeland Security Today citation also pans out: We need to start going back through the entire source citation: The magazine's editor, Anthony Kimery, devotes the issue's masthead to the book and spends quite a bit of time talking about it (p. 3, as listed within the original user's citation).

As for the Down with Tyranny! blogsite: A) It has a hyperlink to its Amazon store in the right sidebar, it is not a pay-for-click site as Voceditenore implies (no more harmful, and much less intrusive, than the paid ads on, say, Rush Limbaugh's website). B) If we want to be fair, if you Google the blogsite, it has a lot of other websites which link over to it. It is a blog site, but an irrefutably popular one that readers obviously respect due to its following.

(But I agree with Voceditenore, we can disregard the sales claim and the blurb by Gleason, not because he isn't a recognized author, but because it is a two-line quote.)

Returning to the issue of notability, under [5], this book qualifies on this count as well because "the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." As displayed on the author's website, primitivarum.weebly.com, he was recognized by Pulitzer-winning film critic Roger Ebert,^[1] and his work is already included in college curriculums at University of West Georgia and Yonsei University. His writing was also translated (Dromema, issue 16) and, from the looks of it, published in journals as well (The Externalist: A Journal of Perspectives, issue 8).

It is also interesting that what is listed on the book's Wiki page isn't an exhaustive catalog of its media recognition, cf., the author's website lists much more, including print interviews (I'm not about to go through these and insert them into the book's Wiki page, I'm merely making a point).

All of this, alongside no one contesting the book's acknowledgement in a full review in Pure Politics (Journalstudent is correct, the site is independent and based out of Atlanta) or its being selected by the American Book Center as a Top Ten choice in the field of political science (sourced and verifiable on the book's main page), qualifies it as Wiki-worthy.

Lastly, as Resaltador points out, this book is noteworthy because it offers new information on the subject: As its synopsis makes clear, the book distinguishes itself from the other two on the market about Edward Snowden because it "explores the first 62 mass surveillance disclosures while providing a historical and legal framework for the documents." If you read the outlines for the other two, Greenwald's text is an autobiography of the journalist's time with Snowden which includes new classified documents while Harding's is a biography. All things considered, this is a formal study of what took place and an explanation of what the legal documents mean.

It's funny. We're all passing judgment on this book but has anyone read it?

^ ""Unwild About Scary 'Harry' "". Roger Ebert. 2007-07-19.

Winner423 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC) — Winner423 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I acknowledge nothing of the kind. Your hyperlink for the reference goes to this (WGSO), where there is no ABC banner whatsoever. And Resaltador said exactly the opposite of what you claim. Their view was that this article should be deleted. All of this is moot of course, because Winner423 is currently blocked. If you are ever unblocked, never interfere with or refactor another user's comment. Striking another editor's comment is only appropriate in an AfD when the comment is from a sockpuppet, e.g. User:Journalstudent. – Voceditenore (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, I understand and share your well-founded suspicion that User:Winner423 is yet another creation by the indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer User:Maldoror2, and is accordingly likewise blocked. However, both Winner423's contributions page and his comment posted on this page show he is not blocked. You're probably misconstruing the template at User talk:Winner423, which actually relates to Maldoror2's indefinitely blocked sockpuppet User:Journalstudent. Winner423 reposted the template as part of his attempt to get Journalstudent unblocked. JohnValeron (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. User:Winner423 is was blocked. He was caught in an autoblock because their IP address was the same as the one used User:Maldoror2. The administrator has declined to lift the autoblock so far. I imagine they are now editing from another IP. Voceditenore (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore, thanks for the update. Please, how does one determine that an account was caught in an autoblock? Wikipedia:Autoblock points to Special:BlockList, but that returns no results when searched for Winner423. JohnValeron (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you lifting the block (although you could have informed me I was free to post . . . a person could get the impression you do not want others to argue in this book's defense) and, yes, I have been caught behind an IP firewall or "autoblock" (as have two of my classes, i.e., the reason it looks as if I "[took] up" cf. my talk page where a previous poster left off--and also the reason I have taken a personal interest in this article).

Second, my apologies for the strikethrough. It was not made clear that this was to only be done to banned users; given the context (i.e., there's an instance on this page), I perceived it as protocol if a current comment was superseding a previous one. (Wikimedia is smart in its R&D of a more user-friendly interface because, as it admits, it is unrealistic to expect new users to first find, then read, the site's voluminous posting legislation in short order.) However, it would have been nice if you'd have asked if I understood this before reinstating the block without further ado ; ) However, water under the bridge. We move forward. Now, back to the book's hearing.

I will credit you with one correction and rise you another. You are correct that the author was on WGSO, not WGNO (the link confirms it--however it is nonetheless a nationally-recognized, independent radio station). However, his sales records--which for our purposes test the book's social value since Gurnow is a new author (1 book to date)--are located on his website: http://primitivarum.weebly.com/sales.html

Unless you are going to claim his posted screencaps are photoshopped, which I highly doubt given that Amazon.com could file suit against him and/or his publisher, then the book is/was in fact a bestseller, which at one point rivaled even Greenwald's impressive numbers, which you reported.

Lastly, as I went back to rectify the WSGO/WGNO confusion (the wikilink now matches the hyperlink), I realized something else we need to take into consideration: All of the radio hosts who had the author on their show have Wikipedia pages (thus are recognized as notable personalities themselves), with the exception of one, Mark Edge, who nonetheless is given professional recognition in a Wikipedia subsection.

Winner423 (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winner423, you have addressed at length the issue of notability but have not replied to my comment above at 16:04, 3 October 2014, in which I argued that the article in question should be deleted because:

(1) as a vanity page created by a PR professional on behalf of the book's publisher, it violates Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines; and

(2) as a vehicle for advertisement, it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) by flouting the core Wikipedia policy prohibiting promotion.

Please respond to these concerns. Thank you. JohnValeron (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem (and thanks for asking for my opinion, I'm humbled because I was merely offering my own two-cents on the matter before). But, hey, I'm more than happy to clear my throat and address the crowd ; )

I'm of two minds on this matter. Yes, the original poster apparently admitted (I'm still new at decoding Wikispeak, so my interpretation of the historic record might be admittedly rough) he was a hired PR hand. However, to my understanding, that matter was settled by page deletion (since this is the article's 2nd nomination). The person who posted the current version made corrections right off the bat--I'm assuming--to seal the cracks that the first version fell through (not sure why amendments couldn't have been made to the first instead of simply scrapping it but, again, I'm new on how Wikipedia does things).

However, as a long-time Wikipedia reader--and as I browsed a few policy pages I remember reading the rule that editors are to look at the bigger picture and that no rule is hard and fast--I would think the first and most important question should be "Does an article offer something to Wikipedia's audience?" Thus, should (a page exist), imho, comes before why (a page came into existence). Case in point, teachers grade the content of student papers. Who wrote it (in this analogy, the equivalent to whoever started this article) should never play a role in assessing the quality of the writing (analogously, this article). In theory, all governing bodies function on this principle, which is why discrimination cases arise in the workplace--an employer's personal opinion of the employee factored into his or her assessment of the employee's job performance.

From where I stand, both as reader and teacher, this is an informative page about a book which offers something the others don't--which audiences apparently like as well, cf. it currently has a higher star rating than the other two primary Snowden books on Amazon, although not nearly as many reviews (the same with the book's Goodreads page, although the author has a 300+ following). I actually went out and bought a copy this morning to see what all the hub-bub was about and, yes, it is on Barnes & Nobles shelves. I'll put it this way, it has 70 (yes, 70) pages of sources! I don't even want to guess how many there are total but I wouldn't be surprised if there were over 1,000.

As for the author's credentials, the back cover states he is a pre-law professor, i.e., attorney(?), i.e., knows what he's writing about, which is law, who studied linguistics under and NSA analyst, that "has more than a decade of experience in information technology" which, all things considered, I think better qualifies him to speak on the matter than Luke Harding, who wrote The Snowden Files and whose background is simply journalism.

Yet, in the end, I also think this is another apple/orange scenario: The page is about the work and should be about the work. The value of its contents wouldn't shift if we simply changed the name on the cover. But, again, acknowledging Wikipedia policy, it looks like the guy still makes the grade (as does the book for that matter), however argumentatively slim, there's still benefit of the doubt if we want to be fair .

I hope this addresses your question.

Winner423 (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, well, if I read Wikipedia, I wouldn't have to guess the total number of sources in the book. This page actually states there's 905!

Winner423 (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winner423, thanks for your response. If I may, I'd like to clear up your misunderstanding of the article's provenance. "Yes," you write, "the original poster apparently admitted…he was a hired PR hand. However, to my understanding, that matter was settled by page deletion (since this is the article's 2nd nomination). The person who posted the current version made corrections right off the bat--I'm assuming--to seal the cracks that the first version fell through."

In fact, there are no original poster and second poster. There is only User:Maldoror2, who is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, and who is suspected of being a Sockpuppeteer.

Maldoror2 created the article on the same day he created his Wikipedia account: September 29, 2014.
On October 1, the article was nominated for deletion. Eight hours later, in an apparent fit of pique, Maldoror2 blanked the page, removing the entire contents.
Five hours thereafter, User:Journalstudent restored the page.
Less than an hour later, the article was re-nominated for deletion.
The next day, both Maldoror2 and his suspected sockpuppet Journalstudent were indefinitely blocked.

So you see, the fact that there was a second nomination for deletion of the same article, posted twice by the same individual using multiple accounts, in no way ameliorates my concerns. The article remains both a vanity page created by a PR professional on behalf of the book's publisher—thus violating Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines—and a vehicle for advertisement, failing Wikipedia:Notability (books) by flouting the core Wikipedia policy prohibiting promotion. JohnValeron (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnValeron Ah. I see. Interesting. It just strikes me as odd, and I don't mean any disrespect to the Wiki lawmakers, that contents come after creator. Under current policy, it doesn't matter how noteworthy or important a topic is, whether it stands--first and foremost--depends on who's reporting it, i.e., (however implausible, it still encapsulates the theory) if Amnesty International posts an article about one of its volunteers being taken hostage, we'd strike it down. The only way Wiki readers will get Wiki info on the matter is if someone outside of the organization catches wind of it.

This would still be Wiki-worthy regardless of who is saying it, right?

Moreover, you and I have edited this since its inception. Doesn't that make it our byproduct as well (which I understand to be the underlying philosophy behind the website), or anyone else who might edit it, now that it has been adjusted from its original form? You and I aren't the originators . . . .

I believe my point (since you provided a clearer picture of how it came to be) is this: How might this page's contents differ if someone else posted them? We're judging whether the book merits a page, would we be having this discussion if the PR lid hadn't been blown? If not, that means the page is worthy in-and-of itself, correct? Again, I'm merely thrown for a loop that Wikipedia places more importance on the author of an article than what the article says.

Obviously this isn't a dead-stop deal breaker or we wouldn't be having this conversation because the page would have been erased at the beginning of its Phoenix-like resurrection.

Winner423 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winner423, since you've been so forthcoming, I hope you'll clarify a different point of confusion for me. You self-identify as a professor of Political Science/History at Three Rivers Community College who has given students "an editing assignment to display the malleability of historic fact." You further declare, "I have gotten the culpable student"—presumably User:Maldoror2— "to confess to Internet vandalism" at Wikipedia. This obviously does not jibe with User:JamesBWatson, the admin who indefinitely blocked Maldoror2 and rebuked him thus: "Your only purpose in editing has from the start been to try to use Wikipedia as a PR medium. You have even stated yourself that you have created 'vanity' pages (your choice of word, not mine) on behalf of a publisher that you are employed by." (Emphases in original.)

So, which is it, Professor. Is Maldoror2 a confessed vandal at Three Rivers Community College, or is he a public relations professional working for a publisher? Admittedly, those pursuits are not mutually exclusive, but it seems unlikely he would be both an undergrad and PR pro concurrently. Thanks again for your patience in explaining these things to me. JohnValeron (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnValeron Funny you should mention that. I am currently addressing this issue here: Editing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maldoror2 (Gimme a sec to proofread it, it is rather lengthy because I myself am putting the pieces together now that you have pointed me in the direction of the train wreck.) I'll tag you in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winner423 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G4 and WP:SALT this article per disruption done. G4 states: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." It has the same title as the article that was deleted and nothing has been done for improvement that met the original AfD's concern. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the first deletion was done under CSD-G7 by an "author blanking" and the AFD closed because of the deletion. It makes enough difference that CSD-G4 is not valid.—John Cline (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 01:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stinë Dashurie[edit]

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

Sadly, no significant coverage to reliable sources establish the subject notability. Subject fail WP:GNG.Wikicology (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Unotable show Wgolf (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. ~~Procedurally, there's no reason given for this nomination.~~ I don't think I'm particularly well-qualified to judge the reliability of Albanian-language sources, but this show appears to have coverage from Yll Press and Zeri.info. I assume that print sources in Kosovo also exist, and am inclined to give some benefit of the doubt here per WP:BIAS. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is a rationale for the nomination. I only had a minor issue with my device.Wikicology (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search in the Albanian language (including "gazeta" [newspaper] in the search) shows notability for being the first tv soap series to be produced in Kosovo (http://gazetajnk.com/?cid=1,964,7921 and http://www.yllpress.com/92305/se-shpejti-telenovela-kosovare-stine-dashurie-.html) and apparently also one of the most popular tv shows in Kosovo (http://www.gazetatribuna.com/?FaqeID=5&LajmID=84352). It is prime time tv in Kosovo, aired Sunday evenings, and it has been extended for a second season (http://www.kultplus.com/?id=3&l=4694 and http://www.yllpress.com/92305/se-shpejti-telenovela-kosovare-stine-dashurie-.html). Nomination here seems indeed a case of WP:BIAS. - Takeaway (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added additional information and references to the article. - Takeaway (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It meets WP:GNG due to significant coverage in Albanian language media. IJA (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (I am using this formula for the first time) - It has been 'the first'. Let's give it a chance. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Season (band)[edit]

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

The subject seems to not meet WP:MUSICBIO. The references provided are mostly from the same page – Tumblr. Karlhard (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article features many references to other Wikipedia articles, which are relevant to the article, and also to Wikipedia as well (keeping readers on the site after reading this one). I also took the time to give as many external references as possible, which I agree are mostly from the same sources, Tumblr, Bandcamp, AbridgedPause. But this is because only since last month has Dead Season started to be documented and archived on the internet, therefore all the sources are recent and contained, they have not had the chance to spread about just yet. I spent 6 months researching and writing this article for Dead Season, and it would break my heart if it would get deleted this fast from Wikipedia.

Can you please give me tips on what I could do to assure that this will not be deleted? Do I need to provide more sources, or more different sources? Have I not given the correct licence for the picture? Please keep me informed on anything that I could do to make this article stay on Wikipedia.Thank you. Alexandre Julien, User:HDS

What you need, but haven't provided, is reliable source coverage. Which means things like newspapers, major music magazines, CBC Radio, etc., where a professional media service not personally invested in the band's career has chosen to give them coverage — it does not include Tumblr or Bandcamp or Vimeo clips or a blog where you're crediting yourself as the blogger. (Not that anybody's personal blog ever counts as sourcing on Wikipedia, but it's an especially problematic conflict of interest violation if you're the author of both the Wikipedia article and the sources it's being "referenced" to.) Bearcat (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well detailed, but no sources to meet basic notability guidelines or music notability guidelines. Make sure to safe the sources, and when the subject becomes more notable, in case of deleted, can be rewritten with a similar context. Karlhard (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly detailed but poorly sourced (fails WP:RS due to overuse of social media) promo biography. The Banner talk 22:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it may be a case of COI. Wikipedia is not a promotional page. Karlhard (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a shred of reliable source coverage here, and I'm not sure I'm even seeing a claim of notability that would actually pass WP:NMUSIC even if it were sourced. Unfortunately, if the word about the band "has not had the chance to spread about just yet", then Wikipedia isn't the place to help spread it. You have to wait until they garner real media coverage in properly reliable sources, and then come back and write an article that uses that media coverage for sourcing. You don't get to use Wikipedia as a promotional venue to help create the media profile of a band that hasn't already garnered enough media coverage for our article to be properly verifiable — our role here is to follow the media coverage, not to lead it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is he passes WP:NFOOTY and that is a standard threshold. While GauchoDude is correct that it is only a guideline, so is the general notability guideline. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY GauchoDude (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is pretty WP:TOOSOON. Subject of the article obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOCCER. Wikicology (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the player has played in a national cup competition in a match involving two teams from a fully professional league, he seems to pass WP:NFOOTY. However, not sure whether he is even still playing. Unless sources can be found to indicate additional appearances in an FPL, then would suggest four years of non-appearances mean this player is likely to fail GNG easily and the period of grace given to young players starting out in their professional career would seem to have lapsed. Fenix down (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Fenix down correctly states, this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The article needs improving, not deleting. Further sources are out there, 182 in a search for "Spencer Thompson" on HighBeam, though admittedly not all are for this person. Giant Snowman 17:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving to meet WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:GiantSnowman and User:Mikemor92, not sure where you see this "played in a cup competition" part of WP:NFOOTY, but I'm not seeing it. The only two features listed are 1. Being a senior international or 2. playing a league match in a fully professional league. Regardless, in my opinion not only does he fail WP:NFOOTY, but WP:GNG supersedes which he fails as well. For me, of a Google search for "Spencer Thompson soccer", 2 of the top 3 results aren't even of the Spencer Thompson in question, the other 1 being this Wikipedia page. All other coverage, seems to be WP:ROUTINE. And no, the other Spencer Thompson isn't notable either! – GauchoDude (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GauchoDude: - there is consensus at both AFD and WT:FOOTY that playing in ant competitive match between two teams from fully-professional leagues is enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. As for GNG, as I've stated stuff is out there, see HighBeam. Giant Snowman 13:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: @Mikemor92:: If that were the case, and I'm not saying that it isn't, then it would/should appear in WP:NFOOTY. It appears you may be working off of the old WP:FOOTYN, which was superseded by WP:NFOOTY as is stated at the top of FOOTYN's page. As for WP:GNG, the only non-WP:ROUTINE articles are: a quick mention that he was drafted, the same message, but from his college, a short interview, and two different stories about him entering MLS. I would be pretty surprised if that was all that would be required to meet an encyclopedic-level of notability and for me personally I don't find that as "significant coverage", hence the discussion. – GauchoDude (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GauchoDude: Nope, as an editor of nearly 9 years experience, who has dealt with literally thousands of soccer player AFDs in that time, I am thinking of community consensus at AFD and WT:FOOTY as I have already said. Giant Snowman 15:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Cool, I've been here 8 years working mainly on footy articles too. However, while you may operate under the assumption of community consensus, it's very black and white regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Football's stance on notability, which is spelled out here and superseded by this and this. Wikipedia and the community maintains those as the guidelines to determine notability, full stop. If you feel that should be changed, that's a separate conversation for a different day, however for this AfD I'm operating with the clearly defined and established guidelines.

In any event, GNG is the end all/be all and must be met for this article to be kept, which I still personally do not believe it meets. – GauchoDude (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NFOOTY is not limiting. There are any number of unwritten notability rules consistently applied at AfD that are just as representative of community consensus as the written guideline. One of these rules is that notability is conferred by national cup appearances between two FPL clubs. You'd hard pressed to find even one AfD in which national cup appearances were relevant and this rule was not applied. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put this into perspective, in every afd this year in which national cup appearances were mentioned, whether they were relevant or not, this rule was also mentioned, and was applied when relevant. In two cases the articles in question were kept because the footballers in question had played in a national cup match between to FPL sides (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isak Ssewankambo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahar Hirsh). In four cases the articles were deleted because the relevant cup matches featured at least one non-FPL club (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/İbrahim Coşkun, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Răzvan Grădinaru, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lascody (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Argilashki). In two cases, the articles were kept due to some other source of notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aljaž Cotman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Salazar). In two cases, the rule received a tangential mention despite not being relevant to the notability of the articles in question (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Italiano and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khayal Zeynalov). Most importantly, in none of the ten cases where the matter came up was the rule ignored or its validity disputed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in national cup between 2 MLS teams [2] Nfitz (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, therefore not notable. Just because he appeared in 1 match doesn't make him automatically notable. 2605:A601:4E3:6301:F5F9:1793:8992:216C (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Guys, you're all focusing on WP:NFOOTY (which by the listed definition he also fails), but no one has demonstrated this meets WP:GNG, which is the overall criteria that needs to be met. WP:NFOOTY is only a guideline "... used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." If he doesn't meet GNG, he shouldn't have an article, regardless of WP:FOOTY status or lack thereof. – GauchoDude (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Losseny Doumbia[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - international footballer, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of the article obviously meet WP:NSOCCER. I understand that the article needs much work but the subject meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Wikicology (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GiantSnowman.The subject has played for the Niger National Team.Passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2002–03 Dynamo Dresden season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS. Kingjeff (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:NSEASONS.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Per WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS. Low level team in non-FPL. Articles contain no significant level of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The teams earlier and later seasons do meet WP:NSEASONS. It's unfortunate, and perhaps a bit picky, to remove all the information from intervening ones. Better to follow suggestion in WP:NSEASONS - "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article.". Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Due to the fact that most of these articles are just stat dumps for the seasons in question, I would suggest a redirect to List of Dynamo Dresden Seasons would be more appropriate. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all! - Same guidelines for all. During these seasons less had interest for this club, than today.--Nikebrand (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All seasons listed here are amateur seasons. In the past they had no "3.Liga". It was only the called "Regionalliga Nordost" or "Oberliga". If you would allow this, all other amateur leagues must being shown on Wikipedia. --Nikebrand (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The further you go down the football league system, the further you're away from WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recherched that these players being unknown named all there in these articles. At least the most. --Nikebrand (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vins Plastics[edit]

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

Not notable. Two of the references are their own website, whereas all three of the others are about their buying a particular kind of press. The tone is promotional, and there is nothing to suggest that this company is any more notable than 1000s of other companies. ubiquity (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ADVERT for a non-notable manufacturer. i mean WHAT an AD! examples: "George Vins was a young, ambitious and exceptionally knowledgeable chemical engineer, who was motivated to construct a flexible packaging company that provided advanced and innovative packaging solutions for customers....Today, Vins Plastics is renowned and a global leader in the flexible packaging industry, dedicated to growth and change within an ever increasingly competitive market..... The family business tradition continues as Jamie, CEO & President, welcomes his two sons to further advance the company’s growth and leadership in" (bla bla bla AD!) Cramyourspam (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under G4 by JamesBWatson (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An upcoming actress-meaning of course way too soon. Now maybe someday, but not today! Wgolf (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Oh it was deleted already it looks like! Wgolf (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD#G4.— CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per G4 ,the article was previously deleted in an AFD in August 2014.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mason (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last two AFD's closed as "no consensus". Rationale same as last time: Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. All coverage comes from the time that he won CMT's Next Superstar, with no subsequent coverage whatsoever. This seems to be a case similar to Angela Hacker, who won a season of Nashville Star but received no coverage after the fact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'm repeating myself from the previous discussions as well: In my view, the "keep" consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Mason (singer) was not at all unreasonable. There's coverage of him beyond just news of his Next Superstar win (in 2011), for example in the Dayton Daily News I found there is coverage from 2012, and also a bit of coverage of him touring in 2013 (Don Thrasher. "The Top", Dayton Daily News 26 July 2013: p. AC.3). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable for the one competition and has also received coverage outside of that event. Ca2james (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article now, from a variety of sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Please correct your closure at the third AfD, remove the WP:NPASR, and then procedurally close this AfD. This topic has been at AfD since 29 July 2014, more than eight weeks. The community has made a clear expression of opinion, that this is not a topic that currently needs discussion at AfD. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Trevor Spashett[edit]

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

Long dead architect, but the article seems almost entirely based on the architect's personal archives, or unpublished sources, or Architects' registers. It suggests this is written by a relative of the subject, but there's no evidence Spashett is anything more than a competent, jobbing architect. The Church Army Chapel seems to be attributed to the company he worked for. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable architect. seems to have an unremarkable church to his credit. WP:COI all over the article which seems to have been written by his own family. photo of the subject has this info: "Jean Spashett (1964 slide); Linda Spashett Storye_book (2009 scan). - Slide taken by the wife of the architect in 1964; from his archives. Jean Spashett (1964 slide); Linda Spashett Storye_book (2009 scan). - Slide taken by the wife of the architect in 1964; from his archives" --thus we see that user Storye_book is the subject's family. most of the article's edits have been by Storye book, who is the subject's family. the info should go on a family blog, not in the encyclopedia. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started and edited this article a bit after extracting text from the article about the Blackheath Church Army Chapel (local to me). At the time, I hoped that more authoritative references from significant independent publications might surface about the architect, but none seem to have been found. Editor storye_book does appear to have particularly close interest (COI). Agree it fails WP:GNG. Paul W (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I googled him, news and newspapers too. Nothing. Szzuk (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egert Heintare[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. His futsal career does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT either. PROD was contested based on his futsal career. As mentioned in the PROD rationale, consensus at afd has been that playing international futsal in and of itself does not confer notability, and it does not appear to have generated significant coverage for Mr. Heintare. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, salted for a while. Alexf^(talk) 22:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yashu Dhiman[edit]

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

no indication of meeting GNG or any other notability standard John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:47, 24 September 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 17:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant reliable sources that establish its notability. Subject obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Wikicology (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. J04n(talk page) 17:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sadly, this is pretty WP:TOOSOON and NYA. Wikicology (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Recreation of an already deleted page: Yashu Dhimaan. Also salt both names. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aryz[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. It's always hard to be sure about how reliable sources in another language are, but I couldn't find enough to establish notability and there is no Spanish-language article Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 24 September 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 17:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverages to reliable sources, establish its notability. The fact that the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST is too obvious to ignore. Wikicology (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to OSRAM#Traxon Technologies. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E:cue lighting control[edit]

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

Largely unsourced company profile. The accessible sources on this company article consist of an article in a trade publication, a youtube video and an incidental mention on an old version of the times square website. The fourth source on enlighter.com has been deleted, while the final source on LSA looks to be a business profile a la crunchbang that was deleted at least three years ago. A given that the first couple of pages of google results come up with the company website and resellers listing product catalogues, coupled with the generally promotional tone of the article, I'm inclined to think this article belongs down the memory hole. Dolescum (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 24 September 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 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OSRAM with merging of some info. I'd say merge with Traxon Technologies since they seem to be different arms of one business, but that article may well be merged and redirected to the parent company OSRAM. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traxon Technologies. E:cue lighting control doesn't have the sources to demonstrate notability. (The YouTube video isn't on an official account. It's just someone's travel video showing a pretty building that doesn't even mention the company.) If the lighting control product is cutting edge (and it may well be) the company is likely notable, but we need independent reliable sources to show that. Meters (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traxon Technologies has now been redirected to OSRAM#Traxon Technologies, which already mentions E:cue lighting control as Traxon's control brand. Meters (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reshma Dordi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Been looking this over, not sure if she is notable or not-she is a host of a show and a former model, but nothing else seems to be there, so either a redirect or a userfy be the best IMO. Also article was previously deleted in 2007, but brought back 3 years ago! Wgolf (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-adding that it was also previously deleted in 2007 but was brought back 3 years ago. Wgolf (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 September 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 16:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Typical page3 article. Fails WP:ARTIST/WP:ENTERTAINER - Athachil (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Excellent rescue effort by Mark viking §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Enterprise Document Sharing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted previously at AfD for lack of notability, userfied and later restored. In the interim, absolutely no indication that the subject ever achieved notability. Safiel (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC, WP:GNG, and WP:CSD#G4: Substantially the same stub as created, changed from "is" to "was" by the creator minutes later, with no substantial improvement in the 7 years since. No details added to article, and no evidence provided of standard ever being used. This also qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 as a page that was reverted back into article space (by Dclunie (talk · contribs)) 14 days after being userfied by a deletion discussion, with no change whatsoever to the content or circumstances that lead to deletion and no reason given for return to article space. --Closeapple (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—937 google books hits. 694 google scholar hits. That in itself is not an argument for notability, but it tells me that it's likely a good argument can be made. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:26, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewritten the article from three secondary and one semi-primary (a collaborator with IHE) sources, all reliable. As LC notes, sources among books and journal articles are numerous and easy to come by; an inspection of these shows a number of them to be secondary and reliable. These WP:BEFORE sources and those in the rewritten article demonstrate notability of the topic and the rewrite has eliminated problems like promotional tone and the link farm. --Mark viking (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Nice work by Mark viking in wading through the literature to salvage the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:38, 24 September 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 16:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark's major improvements. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Lindquist[edit]

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

This one has a WP:RESUME smell. His only claim to fame is a single NY Times article, but from that article alone I don't see how he is notable. Interesting side note: the article about some artist of the same name, until Erichten (talk · contribs) rewrote the article, and also created Zane Benefits (the name of Lindquist's company). I smell WP:SOAPBOX. bender235 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick is the 29 year old President of a software company that is changing the landscape of small business health insurance [3]. He has co-authored a book (with a NYT Bestselling author) that will be released this fall [4] and is sought after as a speaker and expert on US healthcare reform. Not sure why bender235 is after the page. While article may need to be updated, I don't agree with the suggestion to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonrbrand (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:BLPNOTE. It is WP:TOOSOON. Of the five citations in the article, two don't mention him, even in discussions of the company, two are closely related to him (his homepage, and his LinkEd page), and one mentions him in a review of the company, primarily quoting him. That is not the significant coverage required by our notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hijacked 2009 article about the artist also fails WP:BLPNOTE for lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 23 September 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 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable BLP and business-spam Cramyourspam (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig O'Neill[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:GNG Quis separabit? 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Of local interest only. Fails WP:NOTEBLP and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Only source is Univ. Central Arkansas which has his bio (apparently provided by the subject), and a news release of his donation of broadcast tapes. --Bejnar (talk) 03:47, 28 September 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 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local radio voice who simply happened to work for 30 years. unsourced except for two college website blurbs which appear to have subject-contributed content. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yes there very likily will be an article about this game in the future, but for now it is a WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. If you want to redirect F1 201 (video game) so be it, however I don't see this title as a viable search term. kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled eighth-generation Codemasters Formula One project[edit]

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

This is an obvious WP:CRYSTAL case - Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. There is no content in this article, the author doesn't even have a name. The only source is a blog post in which this project is briefly mentioned. - hahnch e n 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. ansh666 17:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Czar's move/redirect suggestion does make sense, I'd be fine with that. ansh666 19:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When someone from the company doesn't know the name of the product at all? Maybe that's saying 'don't create an article about it yet'. WP:CRYSTAL and what company has ever put out a new product then said 'hey, we got this coming out soon, thanks for the free $60 on this inferior product, sucker'? Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:HAMMER 69.166.78.85 (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The project is notable as it is the first Formula One game on an eighth-generation console. Its development was closely tied to F1 2014 to the point where it directly affected F1 2014. The article name is representative of the way the game will be a departure from other titles in the series. If the article was still called F1 2015, the person nominating the article for deletion would not have bothered; the only reason why there is an AfD in the first place is because he didn't get his way in the article. There has been no consultation with any editors involved in related articles, so this whole thing amounts to IDONTLIKEIT. The developer has already given details of when an announcement will be made (which cannot be included for obvious reasons), which will come to pass in the space of about a week. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is WP:TOOSOON, technically the article does not currently pass WP:N. There is no need to jump the gun with articles so soon after the merest scrap of information becomes available. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft (will leaving a redirect) until name will be clear. 178.93.237.66 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Codemasters (or Formula One video games) after moving back to F1 2015 (video game). Blah, blah, yes, hammer. "F1 2015 (video game)" is a worthwhile search term and there are a few sentences to extract from:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/07/31/f1-2014-announced-next-gen-game/

http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a587684/f1-2014-unveiled-franchise-will-debut-on-ps4-xbox-one-in-2015.html

http://www.vg247.com/2014/07/31/f1-2014-pc-ps3-xbox-360-release-date/

to plop at either Codemasters or Formula One video games. Better than outright deletion for not knowing its name. czar ♔ 01:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd say keep, we will soon be finding out more about this game and the page will just have to be recreated, keep it and we will build upon it as information is released. CDRL98 (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Ristea[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:KICK and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm not sure he meets WP:KICK, but his record is bad. Maybe if he improves. Now probably not. Pugiliste pro (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:KICK and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is the SUPERKOMBAT win does not cross the threshold of WP:KICK kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Bugaenko[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Looks like he has a good record, but he doesn't meet WP:KICK.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally I think he meets WP:KICK, he won the championship of an important organization (SuperKombat).Pugiliste pro (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the SuperKombat champion does not confer automatic notability, he's not ranked among the top 10 fighters in his division, and the coverage appears to be routine reporting of sports results. In other words, there's nothing to show he meets WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:KICK and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Progressive Party presidential tickets[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, there were 3 parties named the Progressive Party in the United States (see Progressive Party (United States, 1912), Progressive Party (United States, 1924), and Progressive Party (United States, 1948), this article synthesizes the three trying to show some continuity among these parties and their electoral performances. Not encyclopedic as all these elections are covered in sourced detail in already created articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; these were three separate parties despite the shared name. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, The 1912 and 1924 parties weren't entirely separate, as the the reminents of the former were still there and were a major part of the latter. As to 1948, the California and Wisconsin parties, which were part of the 1924 campaign were parts of that campaign as well, so there was SOME continuity. Of the races it ran in three of the five got over a million votes and it was the most successful third party in history. Not only that, it elected members of congress throughout most of the first half of the 20th centuryEricl (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the 1912 and 1924 movements were completely separate. See TR's view of the Socialist Party and note the fact that the Socialist Party was one of the main driving factors behind the 1924 LaFollette campaign (they didn't run a candidate that year but instead threw full organizational and financial support to his campaign, the final chapter of the Conference for Progressive Political Action episode.) The only overlap would have been a few aging Bull moosers who might have voted for the third party as individuals. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 7 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Far from being unnecessary reiteration, this is a useful historical tool — a well-researched and detailed list which depicts, at a glance, all of the pertinent details regarding the three respective American presidential runs, while also providing instant comparison between the candidates from the three same-named parties and the instant-overview specifics for each of the elections. Such comparative details are not readily available from each of the individual articles on the three elections and, without this entry, would require moving back-and-forth between the articles and taking notes. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This is a historical thing that should be kept on here for sure. Wgolf (talk) 23:07, 30 September 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 12:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has historical use. as long as the different progressive parties (small p not big P) are clearly shown, it seems okay to intermingle candidates from the various progressive parties. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you or anyone else !voting keep show reliable sources that "intermingle" the candidates in this way? postdlf (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@postdlf - It doesn't really matter if no other source has combined these campaigns in a single list in this way, so long as no novel claim is being made. If the article intimated that this was all one political movement, with some sort of ideological or organizational continuity, that would be a novel historical argument and thus prohibited "Original Research." This is just a unique mashup of indisputable historical facts, making no claims other than being a LIST of PROGRESSIVE PARTY PRESIDENTIAL TICKETS. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous arguments in support of the article, particularly those of Roman Spinner. Article is well-resarched, verifiable and has historical value.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This keeps getting said, yet no one has shown this in this discussion; there are no references in this list to establish that there is a continuity between these organizations; and it's telling that Progressive Party (United States) is merely a redirect to the disambiguation page section Progressive Party#United States. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is three distinct political movements: TR's trustbuster Republicans (center-right ideologically), Robert LaFollette's more or less independent run for Presidency (there was no real party behind it, it was essentially a ballot name, backed by the trade unions and the Socialist Party; center-left ideologically); and the anti-Cold War liberal Democratic organization associated with former Sec. of Agriculture Henry Wallace and backed by the Communist Party (center-left ideologically). The fact that this is an unabashed LIST of these otherwise pretty much unrelated things using the same name makes it okay, in my view. I don't see this as a fork either. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Combining them in a list like this implies a continuity that isn't there, and the list would require some pretty heavy disclaimers to resist that tendency, more effort than whatever this is worth (which isn't anything that I can see). If you acknowledge that they merely shared names, it's like you're endorsing a "list of people from any place named Peoria". postdlf (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be hard to write a heavy disclaimer. In fact there needs to be a heavy disclaimer. This, of course, is a simple editing matter, not really an aspect of a notability challenge. Carrite (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is actually greatly similar to a page I launched, List of Canadian socialist parties (limited to the very early years so far) ... Those organizations are apples and oranges and pears to some extent, although with greater continuity than the three "Progressive Party" organizations here. Still, not to use an OTHERSTUFF argument, such pages of unlike things are more or less a device to help a newcomer decode one organization from another — a disambiguation page on steroids, if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@postdlf - I have rewritten the lead and added short historical blurbs for each of the organizations. Hopefully this satisfies your objection. Carrite (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic Revolution Records[edit]

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

No coverage in secondary sources; promotional. Blackguard 22:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an individual, who is directly interested in Progressive Rock community worldwide, I have been monitoring the discussion regarding Melodic Revolution Records page. I have added a several relevant sources into the article as required, according to this discussion. Will take care of doing more once I find a little more free time. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:883:C600:D95:5C27:F41B:6A1 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:1811:883:C600:D95:5C27:F41B:6A1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about it: Talk: Melodic_Revolution_Records. Please read all the comments. There are several artists who have their own Wikipedia page linked to Melodic Revolution Records wikipedia page. And more will come ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisgeorges (talk • contribs) 09:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC) I have added a various links to the secondary sources regarding both the label itself and its activities and references to the artists it is working with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:883:C600:AC81:15A9:D9D2:1A7 (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2A02:1811:883:C600:AC81:15A9:D9D2:1A7 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For all the reasons stated above.

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuusoo[edit]

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

NN website, some claims of involvement with varuous things but not any substantial or notable involvement with anything substantive or notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that Lego Cuusoo was such a big deal I would have thought this a solid basis for an article, though obviously it will require more references to establish notability. Artw (talk) 05:17, 23 September 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 12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nina Stemme. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bengt Gomér[edit]

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

NN stagehand's bio sourced to his website. Worked with famous people in famous places do what??? If I took tickets at a Rolling Stone concert, do I get an article here, too. Worked with Jagger on tour. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A scenographer (stage designer) is a "stagehand" to about the same extent that Coco Chanel was a seamstress. --Hegvald (talk) 12:13, 17 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability or the existence of better references. —Swpb^talk 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nina Stemme, to whom he is married [5]. There currently seems to be a fair amount of coverage in Swedish newspapers about his directing Turandot at Dalhalla next summer with Stemme in the title role, this, for instance - so there is some notability but, unless someone can find coverage, probably in Swedish newspapers, of his previous career, not enough for a standalone article. PWilkinson (talk) 13:52, 27 September 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 12:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per PWilkinson. It's likely to be possible to find enough material for a better article. For the time being, redirecting to his wife's article and including a brief sentence about him there seems like the best idea. --Hegvald (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Either Redirect or Delete. Wgolf (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breathless Beauty, Broken Beauty[edit]

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

Non notable artwork. Prod declined. It is on temporary exhibition for one art festival. WP:BEFORE finds several passing mentions in the context of the festival. No sources dedicated to the work. no critical analysis. no mention of influence on other artists or works (not surprising since its brand new)

Article contains 3 links to WP:PRIMARY affiliated sources. No

Suggest redirection to London Design Festival where it could merit a brief mention.

Prod decline claims notability due to claimed unique features of the work. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: As a "film" this lacks coverage to meet WP:NF, yes... but as a unique work of art that is being displayed in galleries we have other considerations, yes? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt long time no see, I believe we have not interacted since Rome, Sweet Rome. There are many unique pieces of art that are displayed in galleries and museums. Very few (percentage wise) are notable. This one is only exhibited temporarily to boot. It has won no awards, received no commentary or critique. or any other trappings of notability. The artist was certainly selected to create the work by the museum for the exhibition, but that would be true of whatever bit of art she happened to create. The one she actually did create has not been noticed by anyone subsequently. using WP:ARTIST as a proxy, its possible that it could satisfy 4.b but its borderline, and it certainly fails 1-3 and 4a,c, and d. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... to be fair, I've been a part of several and installation pieces are not the same as permanent; they usually travel and are seen at only one location at a time. This brand new article may simply fall under a version of TOO SOON. It's public appearance is recent and it may capture the attention of reliable sources. If so, we can consider undeletion or recreation. Does its author or an article contributor wish it userfied? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am certainly not arguing that this work can never become notable, just that it isn't now. (Although I think its more appropriate to treat it as a work of art than a film, even though film is involved.) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Pat O'Neill's The Decay of Fiction, Michael Haussman's A Study in Gravity and Yoshua Okón's Salò Island are similar... art statements displayed in a film format. Some of the artists and works have articles. Others, not yet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:42, 17 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~non~~ barely sourced artist spam. a temporary installation at a museum by a non-notable artist is hardly worthy of the encyclopedia.Cramyourspam (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - This article details an important technical 'world's first' being the first example of a 12K Video Sculpture anywhere in the world - something which is technically complex to achieve and even more so to do with artistic integrity. As such it has rightly earned a place in the history books, which ought to be sufficient justification for a few K of space on a Wikipedia server. The world is waking up to 4K video, and 8K has been recently demonstrated. 12K systems are already in development by major technology manufacturers, and will become more and more important over the coming years. Acknowledging and learning about early examples of this technology cover an *essential* part of information technology history, irrespective of the artist's individual merit. Indeed unprecedented artistic endeavours like this often become signposts for both art and technology followers. As a unique physical experience which cannot be reproduced 'online' - this work must be experienced to be appreciated. Arguably, anyone who has not witnessed this artwork *in person* may not be qualified to judge its merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.233.250 (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what "history books" would those be exactly, artist-IP? and the trivial technical "first" is not much of a claim to fame. i don't think the "first" art video in 8mm film, 16mm film, VHS tape, MP4 video, MOV video, (etc etc etc) or any other format has its own encyclopedia article. if there exists an article about this 12k video format, then there could be included there a line or two: "the first (sic SOURCES?) art video in 12k video format was Breathless Beauty, Broken Beauty by artist/filmmaker Vanessa Jane Hall" --and even that is a stretch. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The art doesn't use the non-existent 12k video format. It is 3 4k displays put together. Otherwise known as a Video wall, a technique that has been out for decades. And Video sculpture has been a thing since the 50s (and note the actual pioneers in that field of art do not have articles dedicated to their pieces) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Christian[edit]

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

No evidence supporting that this WP:BLP establishes notability as an artist. 1292simon (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy having just a single source is not an automatic death-sentence for an article, but in this case I have not yet found a single independent reliable source on Anthony Christian. (The cited source is the webpage of the artist.) I examined all 171 hits on GoogleScholar, and none were about this chap. In GoogleBooks I found several mentions of the portrait painter Anthony Christian-Howard (both with and without the hyphen), but no mentions of this Anthony Christian. Having one-man shows at galleries, such as the Hazlitt, is indicative of someone who is either notable or likely to become notable, but the problem here is that much of the newspaper (and magazine if any) coverage is likely to be before electronic preservation of those sources. Nonetheless, I would (in fact did) expect to find something in reliable electronic sources, but I did not. Citations to paper only reliable sources is perfectly okay. I would urge the author to request and accept WP:Userfication, pending time spent in musty old libraries reviewing newspaper archives to recover the citations that would prove substantial coverage of his child prodigy status and coverage in the arts section of his one-man shows. Some magazine coverage in reliable sources would be nice too. The National Gallery has a press clippings file on him #NG24/1957/15. Some artists keep folios of their past news press, so checking with the artist or his gallery might be useful. I would also seriously consider rewriting the chronology in prose paragraphs with appropriate in-line citation. P.S. There is a press photo of him on sale at eBay and Diomedia, here and here. --Bejnar (talk) 22:13, 26 September 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 12:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in fact double delete with cheese -blatant self-promotional artist-spam by non-notable local painter (and wife). no sources except artist's own website and the so-called ICHOR gallery --which is also run by the artist. note the website's copyright notice on the bottom of the pages: "Copyright of Anthony Christian and Marian "Fanny" Christian. All Rights Reserved" see archive snapshot here. the article is AUTObiographical BLP. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Ali Mondal[edit]

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

This is a PROD contested by DGG with the rationale "member of a legislature: all suchare always notable". However, he is merely a member of a gram panchayat (local council for a small village of less than 9000). Extremely unlikely to be notable. —innotata 03:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 03:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —innotata 03:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —innotata 03:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misinterpreted. He does indeeed notsee,m to have been elected to a national or state legislature. If there are no objections, I'll restore the Prod. & delete accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object. —innotata 05:45, 23 September 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 12:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and also is not a member or former member of a national, state or provincial legislature.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to DGG, the article as written is a bit confusing and could easily be misinterpreted as asserting that he holds a legislative seat if the reader isn't already familiar with the actual terminologies in Indian politics. Regardless, it is indeed the case that local councillors do not pass WP:NPOL, and this article as written is not well-sourced enough to claim WP:GNG. In addition, there's an evident conflict of interest here, as the creator (User:Bittu Mondal Jhuruli) has a username that includes both the subject's surname and the name of the town the subject is asserted to have been born in — and gives his father's name on his user page as "Asher Ali Mondal", virtually guaranteeing that there's some kind of direct family relationship between the subject and the creator. (This would also explain some of the writing tone, such as "It is that he is not so highly educated man so sometimes he got helps from others for what about fault or right for his personal knowledge that certainly improved him to the higher position of politics and political knowledge.") Of course, a COI wouldn't be a fatal flaw if the subject passed a notability rule and could be properly sourced up — but it does the article no favours if those things aren't true. Stone cold delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luckies[edit]

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

The article makes some big claims, but a search for reliable coverage comes up empty. I found one site that a first glance appears to be significant coverage, but it turns out to be a blog. And it's just one site: the rest I could find were sites selling their products, or press releases. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a blog! It's a legitimate manufacturer that was established in 2005, they invented the first foil covered scratch off map!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.245.103 (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is their listing on the nation limited database; http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05388393/LUCKIES-OF-LONDON-LIMITED - They supply Waterstones, John Lewis, Amazon and many other large corporations proving they are a legitimate company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.245.103 (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-sourced orphan blurb about a non-notable manufacturer. applying the foil scratch-off printing process long used on lottery tickets to a non-lottery use (tourist maps) hardly seems newsworthy.Cramyourspam (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliable sources are necessary to support the article Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus (WP:NPASR). (Non-admin closure) 69.166.78.85 (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Ngurah Oka Ratmadi[edit]

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

Since it seems not all mayors are notable on here, here is one that does not seem to be. Has been tagged as a orphan for nearly 6 years. The link that was on here just was about the town not about him. (even the category has just him in it) Wgolf (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced BLP. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a reference confirming that he is the mayor. It's not much of a reference, but since he is the mayor of a city of 500,000 people, confirmation is enough IMO. Other references undoubtedly exist that are not in English. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Of note is that the article is no longer an unsourced BLP as of this post.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he's an executive mayor, as I assume he is, and not just a figurehead then the district is large enough to establish his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His article could use some more sources (there are probably a lot more: does he have a page at the Indonesian Wikipedia?), but as a mayor of an area with a large population (500,000+), he's probably notable enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: the correct term is regent, not mayor, and he was not governing a city, but a regency (US, UK people: think county). The article is poorly written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Well I am never sure who qualifies on here for mayor notability anymore since I always am finding odd cases where they are not. Wgolf (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In an Indonesian context, 500k people in a regency is not uncommon (in Java, 1 million's not that uncommon either). Whether this makes the individual notable or not, I'm not sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VSN Video Stream Networks[edit]

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

Relatively minor prize, an nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG and Fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:27, 22 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:03, 23 September 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 11:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Unotable, though it has been around for nearly 25 years. Wgolf (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solidiance[edit]

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

That they have entered into an "alliance" with notable firms does not make them notable. The refs are mere notices, or PR, or things they themselves have written. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I would say redirect but not sure what to, as for now delete. Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 27 September 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 11:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Reads too much like a PR piece of some random company, failing to see the notability here, as others said. RegistryKey (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a few pages which mention them in passing, or cite them. Neither of these are enough to establish notability. Everything else I found were promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jave[edit]

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

I had this as a prod but now looking at it-this seems more like an AFD. a person whose band has no page even. (only source was to Facebook) Wgolf (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Also oddly there is a tag from 2012 on the article which is more then 2 years before this article was made. Wgolf (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:15, 23 September 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 11:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. I took time to find references to reliable sources that establish its notability, all to no avail. Subject fails WP:GNG. The truth is, he is not notable. Article about him here is just WP:TOOSOON. Wikicology (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete definitely fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy if the article's author requests so at my talk page. Deor (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian J. Costello[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Sources seem to be about a place, not him, nothing on Google, nothing that supports any of the text. Publisher of his book appears to be purely local history imprint Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 06:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are so vague, that you can not check them. Seeing his massive field of knowledge, it seems a hoax or at least massively overblown to me. The Banner talk 09:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Costello is a well recognized local historian of the Pointe Coupee area in Louisiana. His works have misty centered on Pointe Coupee but have also included New Orleans and South Louisiana. At least one work, the Flood of 1912, is of interest to the entire Mississippi River region. Everything I read on the page of his bio is correct. He has been honored by the Creole Heritage Center at the university in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Perhaps instead of being called an American author, a better title would be a Louisiana historian. But I do not think it should be deleted. Our company, Avoyelles Publications dba ^[1], published some his early books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.119.7.235 (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ thelouisianapurchase.net

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local author. filomena source is a dead/expired link.Cramyourspam (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a hoax, but sources have not yet been provided to show this prolific author's notability much beyond the borders of Pointe Coupee Parish. Google searches turn up a lot of mentions, and in there might be substantive reviews or other indications of notability. Maybe this could be userfied or sent to draft space for further sourcing and development, if the creator is interested. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Florin Sandu (lawyer)[edit]

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

It fails WP:Notability (person), as there are little reputable secondary sources demonstrating his notability. The creator of the article notes on the talk page that the subject is "a friend", and that he or she is "writing this article to him". Ollieinc (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This gentleman appears to be accomplished, but I'm not sure how to evaluate the various positions. I was intrigued by the "Secretary of State" title (e.g. [6]), however, there appear to 15 ministries each with many secretaries of states who are subordinate. - Location (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following passage asserts Sandu was "General Inspector of Romanian Police" -- that sounds like he meets the criteria for WP:Politician, as it is a national office. If he was appointed a Brigadier General then he meets the criteria for WP:GENERAL. Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On January 2001 Colonel Sandu was appointed General Inspector of Romanian Police, function which will hold until November 2003. Following this appointment, he was promoted to brigadier general which later turned in the function of Principal Questor.

Also found mention as "Chief of Police" in a US State Department report: [7]. - Location (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About a decade ago I read that an incoming US President has about 3,000 political appointments he or she makes, starting the the Departmental Secretaries that sit in the Cabinet, then Secretaries, like Secretary of the Navy, that are not at the Cabinet level, Directors of Agencies like NASA, NOAA, NPS, EPA, FBI. Some contributors wrongly assert that WP:Politician only applies to elected offices, but I think that is a mistake. I think it applies to all "office holders", including appointees. I don't care if this Romanian title is translated into English as "Chief of the National Police", "Inspector General of the National Police", "Director of the National Police". He was clearly an "office holder". He was clearly a senior office holder, at the National level. So he clearly qualified for wikipedia notability under the special purpose notability guideline WP:Politician. Note, this does not apply just to American office holders. Translation can be odd, and counter-intuitive, so I encourage you not to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Please also bear in mind the long-standing precedent to consider all Generals and Admirals as notable. The military wikiprojects guidelines are not quite a special purpose notability guideline. But they might as well be, because their guidelines are routinely treated as if they were one of the special purpose notability guidelines. The military wikiproject members have been extremely aggressive that military officers at the Colonel or Naval Captain level are not automatically notable, but that officers at the flag level, that is Brigadier Generals and Commodores are automatically notable. And, apparently, Sandu was promoted to Brigadier General -- so automatically notable under that criteria as well. Geo Swan (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, but the wording of WP:POLITICIAN could not be clearer; it applies to "Politicians ... who have held ... national ... office". Not civil servants, politicians. That means executives and legislators, period. And no one claimed ambiguity about what his role was, just that this role in fact did not automatically entitle him to an article. Finally, as I pointed out, he was not a general in the military, but in the police. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed some kind of distinction under which police generals didn't count as generals, but, when asked to explain this distinction between army generals, who count as generals, and police generals who don't count as generals, you were completely silent.

If Sandu didn't rise through the ranks of the National Police, if, instead, politicians cherry-picked him from outside the National Police, and parachuted him to this national office, then he was a political appointee -- i.e. a politician. Geo Swan (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible the Romanian police has inflated ranks where the rank of general means something quite different from in the military and is commonplace, but I doubt it, and unless that's the case his rank is one more thing that confers notability. —innotata 07:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man has a number of accomplishments, and with better references he should have the inline citations to show notability.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - let me start by clearing up a few points.
- As Location notes, each Romanian ministry has at least a couple of state secretaries, and while a few of them rise to prominence in the public eye, most are senior civil servants with no particular claim to notability.
- Regarding Geo Swan's observation, I'll note a couple of things. First, until 2002 (and keep in mind, Sandu was appointed in 2001), the Romanian Police had a military structure, meaning its employees had military rank, including that of general. So he was a police general, not an army general, to which WP:SOLDIER refers (at least I would infer that). In any case, military rank alone cannot substitute for coverage in reliable sources.
- Second, WP:POLITICIAN refers to "Politicians ... who have held ... national ... office". Sandu is a civil servant, an agency executive, not a politician. And, not to raise a WP:WAX argument, but most heads of national police agencies actually don't have articles on Wikipedia, although whether they should have them is, I suppose, a separate question.
Having made these points, I don't think Sandu quite merits a "keep" vote based on an inherent-notability argument stemming from his positions. And in terms of sources: well, the article is glaringly lacking in those.
I more or less tend toward a delete (or perhaps userfy) on this one, unless the article creator can come up with some sources, in which case I might reconsider. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what a "Police General" is. Perhaps, in recent centuries, most Generals and Admirals in Western countries are careerists, who rose step by step through each rank in the military hierarchy. This isn't true for all officers today, and certainly wasn't true for most of human history. For instance, at the time George Washington became a junior officer in a UK militia, officers almost always bought their army commissions. That brief militia experience in one of the UK's wars was all the genuine military experience he had before he became the General in charge of the Continental Congress's Army. How many of the officers in the Continental Congress's Navy had been career naval officers -- even briefly?
You say the Romanian Police had a military structure until 2002? The passage I quoted said he was promoted to Brigadier General in 2003.
JAG officers in the US military are still considered officers, aren't they? Some JAG officers were already officers, or enlisted guys or gals, who were sent to law school, or studied law at night school -- and joined the JAG corps when the got their law degree. Others however were lawyers, who volunteered, and were directly commissioned. I suggest this erodes your distinction between "police generals" and "army generals".
Sorry, I think the characterization of all appointees as "civil servants" is wildly unrealistic. Career civil servants, who join some civilian agency right out of finishing college, and or shortly after finishing college, take an entry level position, and then slowly work their way up from entry level to direct their agencies -- are they "civil servants" or "politicians"? I'll return to this later.
How much do you know of the careers of J. Edgar Hoover and Hyman Rickover? Both these gentlemen held their appointment for decades past the age when they would have been forced to retire. How? They were owed political favors by members of Congress who, once a year would pass bills, exempting them from the obligation to retire. Its proof, so far as I am concerned, that the holders of offices like Director of the FBI are politicians.
You realize that in Commonwealth countries the Governor-General and Lieutenant-Governors are appointees?
The individuals in the UK House of Lords and the Canadian Senate are all appointees.
Remember, in the US context, a surprising number of the senior appointments that are the POTUS's to appoint, have to be approved by Congress. Proof, I suggest, that those appointed are politicians.
In totalitarian countries, and traditional monarchies, all, or almost all, senior post are appointed.
Yes, sometimes those appointed to head agencies are individuals who rose through the ranks of their agencies. But, it would be a mistake to consider those individuals to be mere "civil servants". In general the guy or gal who starts at an entry level job, may start as a mere "civil servant", but as they rise in their agency, as they come closer to the level where the politicians who appoint the directors are -- when the directors aren't outsiders -- they have to learn to be politicians. I suggest, in the US context, it is rare for someone from within to be appointed director, if they hadn't already become politicized. Very rarely a careerist will be appointed who doesn't know how to schmooze with the other politicians. These individuals terms are completely ineffective, and they are likely to have their term end early or to resign, early.
Consider Eric Shinseki, who was Chief of Staff of the Army for the final two years of the Clinton administration and the first two years of Bush 43's administration. He had tried to totally reorganize the army, to prepare it for post-cold-war conflicts. Bush and his advisors didn't like Shenseki. The appointment is a four year appointment. But, just over two years into his term they announced his replacement. Unprecedented, the choice of replacement usually being made shortly before the appointment. I felt sorry for him, because his plans seemed wise, and he was turned into a lame duck. Chief of Staff is always the last appointment in an officer's career. But, Shenseki's political career wasn't over, as Obama appointed him Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
The officers on the Joint Chiefs regularly testify before various Congressional committees. So many of their duties are political -- like lobbying for funding, participating in choosing contractors. Look at George Marshall, who went from the JCS to Secretary of State.
IMO the shortcut WP:POLITICIAN was poorly chosen. Judges don't fit under the term "politician". IMO the shortcut politician should be deprecated, in favor of something like "WP:OFFICEHOLDERS". Geo Swan (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: some police agencies have a military structure, with all their personnel given military-type ranks, from private to general. This was the case with the Romanian Police until 2002 - a date you can confirm, among other places, here, in the Interior Ministry's magazine. The passage you quoted, given that it's unsourced, is worthless: I do hope you realize, just short of a decade into your Wikipedia career, that content needs to be verified in order to be considered legitimate. (And in any event, the passage says he was made a general "following his appointment", which happened in January 2001.)
I said, and I think this is a common understanding, that WP:POLITICIAN refers to "executives and legislators". I did not say "elected officials", I realize that appointed legislators exist, so kindly refrain from lecturing me on that point. And I'm sorry, but no matter how much you push this point, you won't convince me that the US Ambassador to Bangladesh is a "politician" simply because he's subject to (unanimous) Senate confirmation. Of what party is he a member? What elected office has he held? What speeches has he given, rallies attended, PACs established, voters interacted with? That's how politics happens in America, and although the man is probably notable by virtue of being a US Ambassador, he's not a politician just because the Constitution happens to require Senate confirmation for him.
You are correct to say that many apparently non-political posts do require a fair amount of politicking - let's also mention General Eisenhower. But a) that doesn't make them politicians in the normal sense and b) people like, say, Hoover have had multiple books written about them. Sandu barely has a newspaper article mentioning him. At some point, it would be wise to come to terms with the lack of sources for this BLP and somehow address that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You acknowledge that WP:Politician applies to executives and legislators. Political appointees, who are appointed to be the directors of Federal agencies are executives.
- With regard to ambassadors, there already is a special purpose notability guideline for them -- WP:DIPLOMAT. You directed us to the biography for a particular ambassador to Pakistan. Let me instead guide you to the articles on the USA's most recent Ambassadors to Canada.
1. Bruce Heyman, Wall Street tycoon and lobbyist;
2. David Jacobson, Obama associate and donor;
3. David Wilkins, loyal Republican who lost an election;
4. Paul Cellucci, loyal Republican who lost an election;
5. Gordon Giffin, formerly a senior aide to Senator Sam Nunn
6. James Blanchard, loyal Democrat who lost an election;
- So far as I am concerned the former ambassadors parachuted in to be Ambassador to Canada who were lobbyists or political donors should also be considered politicians. Geo Swan (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The given sources don't seem enough to meet GNG, but I don't know about whether his papers are enough to show notability. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I do question the judo claims (which were not sourced to the subject) because there is a Florin Sandu who's a judoka, but we can see here [8] that it's a different person since he was 3rd in the national under 20 heavyweight competition in 2005 when the subject of this article would have been 55 years old. Finding sources was difficult because most of them refer to the footballer. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I included this on the Military sorting because he was appointed a Brigadier General, and I remember those on the military wikiproject argue that Generals are inherently notable. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while we debate whether an agency head is necessarily notable, I'd like to stress a more basic flaw with this article: it fails WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
Such sources are entirely absent from the article, and until they are adduced, we cannot take any of its claims at face value. As it happens, I did find one reliable source concerning Sandu: an article mentioning the fact that he's now an attorney, and that one of his clients is a Gypsy mafia boss. Interesting, to be sure, but that doesn't do very much in terms of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources".
So I ask again: where are the sources? Until that rather crucial question is answered, this cannot really be considered a valid article, especially keeping WP:BLP in mind. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the WP:GNG, and we recognize that there are special cases, for which we have about a dozen special notability guideline. Paper encyclopedia cover political office holders at the National level even if they had absolutely zero accomplishments of note. Encyclopedias, both paper, and wiki, do this for comprehensiveness. If you chose to have a gap for the one office holder who accomplished nothing it looks to the reader like the information about that office holder is being censored. It is my interpretation that the special notability guidelines over-ride and supercede the GNG in the relatively rare case they apply. If Sandu fulfills the criteria of one or two special notability guideline why would it be relevant if he doesn't fulfill the criteria of the GNG?
- With regard to police forces that use military rank, follow military discipline, and receive military training, those police forces are military forces, or at least, paramilitary forces. Canada has only one national police force, the RCMP. The RCMP was founded as the North West Mounted Police, and its military roots are clear to anyone. It was founded in reaction to the Northwest Rebellion, and its troopers were taught to fight like mounted cavalry. Canada contribution to the Boer War was a contingent of RCMP. They were not employed as military police, they were employed as long distance cavalry scouts.
- If a police officer holds a military style rank I don't know why we wouldn't consider that WP:SOLDIER applies to him or her. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he was inspector-general of police for a national police force then he is quite clearly notable. A police general is as notable as an army general; any attempt to claim otherwise is utterly illogical. Let's suggest that the articles on directors of the FBI (a much smaller agency) should be deleted and see the response! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The FBI isn't a national police force, not in the way the Romanian Police is (or the Police national, or the Policía Nacional, or the Polizia di Stato). And a fairly major difference between FBI directors and Sandu is that there are copious references about the latter, but barely anything about the former. However, as it seems you aren't concerned with reliable sources, and are content to accept unverified content about a living person at face value, I suppose that argument doesn't hold water with you. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The FBI is a national law enforcement agency in exactly the same way that the Romanian Police is. It is not a police force (and I didn't say it was), but both of them are most certainly law enforcement agencies. It is also considerably smaller, as I said. Are you saying the FBI is more important than the Romanian Police or are you just trying to split hairs? I really do suggest you avoid that, particularly concerning law enforcement with someone who knows about law enforcement. Do you know why there's more about the directors of the FBI? Because the USA dumps everything on the internet; most countries don't. That doesn't mean Americans in senior government positions are any more notable. Since you don't know me, your last sentence is patronising and beneath contempt. Keep it civil. Am I "content to accept unverified content about a living person at face value"? No. But a quick internet search will confirm that Sandu was indeed head of the Romanian Police (e.g. [9]). That means he's clearly notable enough for an article. The quality of the article is irrelevant to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Necrothesp.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 15 September 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 11:57, 23 September 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 11:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp, clearly notable as a head of a national police force, and at least that can be established by reliable sources. —innotata 07:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Ego to the Soul (Self Enlightenment) - Scientific Experiment[edit]

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

Apparently the author's own thoughts on how to live a better life. WP:NOTWEBHOST WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a rambling non-sourced personal philosophy and yoga advice screed. when paragraphs start with questions like: "Do you ever pray to your own Aatma? Do you ever rememebr your own Aatma duriing the day? Do you ever bow to your own aatma everyday?" and end with things like "હુાં મોક્ષ છાં હુાં મોક્ષ છાં મને મોક્ષ આપી દે મને મોક્ષ આપી દે" then we're no longer an encyclopedia. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a mess. It was written from the author point of view. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikicology (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prasuton Manorah (TV series)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. It has no Thai-language article and I don't read Thai, so there may be something I'm missing, which is why I chose AfD rather than prod. As it is an orphaned page, I couldn't propose a possible redirect title. Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The TV series is quite old. Good references to establish notability would be old newspapers (Thai Rath, etc.). Googling "บี มาติกา มโนราห์" (the famous actress+series name) will lead to Youtube video of the series, forum topics with old photos from series, and sites selling DVD of the complete series. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be on Youtube, and there may be DVDs of it, but neither of these indicate notability. It is also important that its notability is WP:V verifiable. Are you able to verify its notability? It has been tagged for more than six years for notability, and no one has come up with sources to verify it in that time. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although most of their representation in Wikipedia isn't well-written, Thai television soap operas generally receive a good deal of independent coverage in the media. I would expect any prime-time soap opera to have lots of entertainment news coverage during the period of its production and broadcast, therefore establishing notability per the WP:GNG. Since this one is from 2002, most of the coverage wouldn't likely exist online, but one should be able to locate them in newspaper archives, should one wish to. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:01, 19 September 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 12:22, 23 September 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 10:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a tricky one. I can't read or understand Thai, so a search would be somehow meaningless, but my search, for the most part, gave me unrelated stuff. However, the series is from 2002, long enough to be a period where any online coverage, if there are any, would possibly be dead by now. The thing is, it aired on a national channel, and apparently at a primetime slot too, which should be enough to establish notability. Given that we must counter systemic bias, I believe that some leeway should be given, and thus, lower standards should be given for non-English series such as this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojpuri Boys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. This has been closed twice as no consensus because of a lack of responses. I'm hoping that the third time, this will attract more comments and that if not, it will be relisted several times so we can finally get an answer on this. It has been tagged for notability for over 6 years, so it is worth having it open for a while at AfD to sort it. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be doing a noble effort on that local language but still do not have enough notability. Delete and maybe redirect the title somewhere. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The best redirect I could see was Music of Mauritius#Asian music in Mauritius. Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. See link to google books search. There are at least 4 books that have them referenced as important cultural figures.--—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:12, 10 September 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 (gossip) @ 10:12, 13 September 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 12:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this is still failing to attract many respondents, I just wanted to repeat that this has already been closed twice as no consensus because of a lack of responses. I'm hoping that the third time, this will attract more comments and that if not, it will be relisted several times so we can finally get an answer on this. It has been tagged for notability for over 6 years, so it is worth having it open for a while at AfD to sort it. Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This band already meet the criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 12 of WP:BAND and WP:GNG as well (look at the refs). I can't see why it is re-listed again and again while there is no reason for deleting it. Kingroyos (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: While relistings are typically limited to two, the two previous AFD discussions for this article were both closed as no consensus due to limited user input. Relisting again in hopes to obtain more input for this third discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it be as no consensus. They are important in Mauritius, but apparently not much elsewhere. If push came to shove I'd say delete. --Bejnar (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Swanson[edit]

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

appears not to meet notability criteria. Additionally, this article has 2 people lumped together as one (look at the references), and splitting doesn't solve the notablility issue (also note Ticket:2014091210002996, which concerns me starting this AfD). --Mdann52talk to me! 07:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I don't have log in to your ticket thing, so I can't verify what is the problem. Second, as I mentioned in my edit summary one of them have over 400 photos for various notable magazines, as the ref suggests. My suggestion would be to live at least one of them. Any thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This (details) shows that his archive is kept and catalogued by a major university, which I think indicates notability (in the normal sense of the word), and I think that there are enough bits and pieces about him on the web for the creation of an article. (There may be material in books and magazines too.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC) .... Elaboration: Keep an article on the Dick Swanson who was born in 1934. (I haven't yet formed an opinion on the 1933–2009 Dick Swanson.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the main problem is that there are at least two Dick Swanson's that are photographers. The one born in 1934, raised in Illinois with the utexas.edu archive, wife from Vietnam, White House photos, etc.[10] / swansonphotography.com And the one born in 1933 in Michigan, died 2009 in Florida.swanson-media.com One of those (or a third Dick Swanson?) took a bunch of photos for the EPA in the 1970s and some of them ended up on commons, commons:Category:Dick Swanson. I think the utexas.edu one is the more interesting one, but there is very little biographical detail available online to use to make a proper biography. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thank you for bothering to elucidate what I'd been too lazy to look into. ¶ The photographer of commons:Category:Dick Swanson is given a little fingernail [it hardly amounts to a "thumbnail"] sketch here. This work is hard to square with what's written in the CV of Swanson 1933-2009, though not completely incompatible with it. It's easier to square with the potted autobio of the other Swanson. Whoever the photographer was, I'd expect there to have been some correspondence between him and the relevant government agency; unfortunately the U Texas archive doesn't appear to include any correspondence, so we learn nothing here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but focus on Dick L. Swanson, photographer (b. 1934) of the U Texas archive and remove swanson-media.com related items. I found a handful of sources Talk:Dick Swanson#Dick Swanson (b.1934) and I think he meets WP:Artist. He seems well known in assignment photography, especially Vietnam related. A Day in the Life of the United States Armed Forces lists him amongst their list of "25 of the best military photographers". And his bio says his work is included in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art.[11] Business Insider also thinks he is the same Dick Swanson of commons:Category:Dick Swanson and it would be nice to have a bio here since there are several dozen DOCUMERICA photos on commons. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Business Insider also thinks he is the same Dick Swanson of commons:Category:Dick Swanson. Yes it does, and it may very well be correct. However, I don't find it at all persuasive. (See my comment in the talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Dual Freq subsequently found more, persuasive (if perhaps not citable) evidence for identifying the photographer of Philadelphia with ~~Swanson 1933-2009~~ Swanson b.1934. (See the article's talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC) .... edited Hoary (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I was saying it is the Dick L. Swanson (b.1934) in Illinois and still living, the current subject of the article. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You were indeed. (What an incredibly stupid thing for me to have written. I blame it on jetlag; others may blame it on senility.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 24 September 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 12:43, 23 September 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 10:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NewMediaRockstars. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Luo[edit]

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

No significant notability outside NewMediaRockstars (which ~~is itself at AfD~~ has itself just survived AfD as "no consensus"). Recommend redirect to said parent article. —Swpb^talk 14:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 15:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 23 September 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 10:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

('Delete The redirect will be sufficient. (even if we end up keeping that article, which I will nominate again for afD. It received insufficient attention, but I am think that if it does received attention, it will be deleted. ) DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Delhi Mumbai[edit]

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

Non-notable film remake BOVINEBOY2008 17:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage. At best WP:TOOSOON, at worst probably not ever notable. --Bejnar (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The single citation is dated August 20, 2011 and references a tweet. --Bejnar (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

and WP:INDAFD: Mumbai Delhi Mumbai Satish Rajwade

Keep this brand new article about a film by notable Indian director Satish Rajwade that is to be released September 26 (before this AFD is slated to end). With respects, the topic is sourcable and this AFD is what may be "too soon". We can let the sourcable/improvable stub remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. What say, Bovineboy, Bejnar ?? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They should have waited to write the article until there was significant coverage and not just hype. --Bejnar (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That "hype" tends to be the case with all Indian films. My point was more that even with issues, this article was brand new on a film is due to be released on Friday and it could always have been nominated if it did not meet WP:NF after release. Why the rush to delete something that could be suitable in very few days? Why not simply suggest to its author that he keep it in userspace for a short while? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as it would be improper to ask @Richa101091: about why the article had to be rushed into the Wikipedia before the film's release and before there was significant coverage; it would be improper to ask @BOVINEBOY2008: as to possible unstated extrinsic reasons for deletion nomination, because such actions would not presume good faith. --Bejnar (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a temporary bold redirect without prejudice to writer/director Satish Rajwade or suggesting to an inexperienced author that a copy of his work might be best if kept as a draft for a short time, and then encouraging him to study WP:NF, would have been reasonable and not nearly as WP:BITEY as sending a brand new article to AFD. And as it was not a hoax nor a policy violation, was there really such a hurry? And while Marathi films are usually adapted from Hindi scripts, it is far less common to have a Hindi film adapted from Marathi.[12] Of course, now that we have confirmed release, and even with issues in sourcing Indian films, keeping this is now a simple matter of regular editing over time. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that it has been released, it looks as though it is non-notable. See here. --Bejnar (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To again disagree, the topic (finally) meets WP:NF... not based upon box office receipts or film popularity (or lack) but upon just enough coverage to meet the guideline. Heck, it's not a popularity contest, and even a total crap film can meet our inclusion criteria. What was first brought to AFD, as a 1113 characters (201 words) stub thought of as TOO SOON just 5 days after being contributed, is now a 2214 characters (375 words) Start or C class that serves our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course just meeting WP:GNG coverage is a case of YMMV, some of us discount hype and printing slightly reworded PR releases more than others. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV is funny, but not a guideline or policy. Intended to catch the readers eye and impart information quickly, Indian entertainment sources are rarely lengthy. Perhaps the government of India could be lobbied to outlaw any paper or electronic news article that is too short (by some arbitrary measure). My own understanding is that SIGCOV is defined here as coverage that gives us information directly related to the topic being covered and that the topic being sourced does not have to be the main topic of the source being used. Per guideline, significant coverage does not also have to be substantial coverage. Often confused with each other, the two terms do not mean the same... here. Be well, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:49, 2 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 10:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expansion work shows this meets WP:GNG and now the film has been released, it will have even more coverage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7 Angels 7 Plagues[edit]

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

I could find nothing to support that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 23 September 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 10:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some weasel words have been included. I don't believe it's notable and there are no references to back any of the claims up. st170e^talk 16:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable band spam. defunct no-hit band from racine. no reliable sources. not newsworthy or encyclopedia-worthy. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Gonzalez-Whyte[edit]

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

Non-notable Judge lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete County judges are not automatically notable and this article lacks the coverage required to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:11, 26 September 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 10:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a county judge? non-notable, even with the OR speculative item, "thus becoming the first Colombian/American Judge by election in the State of Florida and likely the United States of America" --mighty weak claim to encyclopedia inclusion. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wondering where there is some rule saying county judges are not notable? That doesn't make sense -- some counties are highly populous, such as Miami-Dade, while others are rural, and will get less media coverage; still, it depends on what happens within the county, and whether the subject is notable. The WP:GNG applies, with sufficient sources, since she's a big deal in the Columbian-American community, although she does not get as much attention in the American press. The previous version of her article was too long and unsourced, but hopefully improved as per WP:HEYMANN. There is a substantive article about her here after her investiture, mention here, major article here, major article here, mention here, mention here, article here. Another thing: a public defender handling 4,000 cases -- that is substantial. Big reason to keep: she'll throw out parking tickets for Wikipedians who get ticketed in the Miami-Dade county area, so I've been told.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judges at this level are not inherently notable. Being of Colombian descent doesn't improve her notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, judges at this level are not inherently notable — higher level judges, such as a state or federal Supreme Court or a federal District Court, count under our subject-specific inclusion rules for judges, but judges at the county level live or die on WP:GNG. Secondly, her ethnic background doesn't make her more notable than she would be otherwise — if she were the first judge from any Latina background at all, I'd accept that for notability, but not just "the first Colombian-American" (as if whether she were Colombian or Venezuelan or Peruvian or Nicaraguan made an appreciable difference to her career prospects). Thirdly, this article as written is hardly more than a blurb which asserts her existence but offers no real substance to demonstrate why she should be considered worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. And finally, the volume of sourcing here isn't sufficient to claim a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability has not been established. None of the references do that. Up and in (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a place that has a place in South African folklore. This is definitely not something for Wiktionary as suggested by some in the previous Afd. The place verifiably exists and there are some sources. The article needs more sources especially ones detailing its place in folklore, but that is not a reason to delete. I found several places where it was used in advertising, and elsewhere, to be a stand-in for a very rural location, i.e. "the middle of nowhere", but no academic discussion of this phenomenon. But I did find this sentence in the October 2014 Hartebeest Conservation Newsletter Like Pofadder, the farm has become a bit of a legend in Afrikaans folklore and is often used to depict typical farm culture in South Africa. --Bejnar (talk) 04:12, 27 September 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 10:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a place and name that has cultural relevance in South Africa. The same arguments were made in the previous AfD discussion. According to traffic stats it sees about 1k views per month, so certainly not nothing. dewet|✉ 11:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical use. long-words trivia too. national folklore status. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User Dewet. The place and it's name is a feature of South African folklore and popular culture. The name is also used in grammar textbooks to illustrate the agglutinative nature of Afrikaans. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arben Biba[edit]

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

A obscure actor who is too soon if ever The only thing that links to him is Stinë Dashurie which only links to him (not sure how notable that is either!) Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 23:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 23:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 29 September 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 10:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of meeting the WP:GNG. I searched for references to WP:RS to establish its notbility but futile. He his not just notable. I think this is WP:TOOSOON and WP:NYA. Wikicology (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-the page Stinë Dashurie might need a AFD also. Wgolf (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Let me conduct a research on it.Wikicology (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only major character role is in the apparently popular Albanian tv show Stinë Dashurie but the only interview with him that I've found is only one paragraph long in an article about the show (see here). Other roles are mainly in student films, shorts, a few minor roles in tv series, a few commercials and some stage plays and musicals, all for a German language audience (see here). No interviews with him or reviews of him in German either. - Takeaway (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : As above Moudul hasan (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SimplERP[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with just 112 unique hits, including Wikipedia and related websites. Strong smell of advertising. The Banner talk 09:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any non-affiliated sources using google.it that would make this pass WP:NSOFT (only a company that offers it as a product/service, didotech.com). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A search turned up no significant RS coverages. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Gracie[edit]

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

Does not seem notable. Not much in the way of reliable sources.CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:MANOTE. No top tier MMA fights and BJJ success was not at black belt level.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and WP:GNG because he lacks significant reliable independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Oliovski Rotation Technique[edit]

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

Unverified, unknown technique. I could find absolutely nothing about this supposed technique or its supposed developer at Google, Google Books or Google Scholar. PROD was removed by the article's author. MelanieN (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparent nonsense. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably doesn't quite qualify as an A1 speedy, but there's sure not much here to go on. The only "Oliovski" I can find related to theater in any capacity is an unseen character in the Murray Schisgal one-act play A Need for Less Expertise. Whatever this article is intended to be about, it's either nonsense or non-notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Three sentences with no source. The article fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:VERIFY. Kingjeff (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't tag it as a hoax, but hoax is a strong possibility. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above-Moudul hasan (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music 18 (N.Z. series)[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album. Didn't chart in the main charts and google isn't showing any in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable NealeFamily (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These albums are released, sell their few thousand based on name only, but certainly don't receive any significant coverage. At the very least, redirect this and all other New Zealand titles and salt to prevent recreation. For such minimal content, these articles are targets for IP vandalism. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia's Tear[edit]

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

Non-notable musical project. Talk page shows that at some point it was up for speedy deletion, but somehow that process was stopped, even though the discussion shows that no hint of notability has been given. Multiple wikipedias have the exact same poorly referenced article with next to no information at all. In the meantime, even the project's website seems to have disappeared. - Andrei (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced --or at least dead/expired links when given except for the band's myspace page. article author is a 1-subject (this band) writer, indicating possible autobiography or COI at work. no readily-apparent notability.Cramyourspam (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any third party sources that would justify the article's notability. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although this looks like an obvious Keep I have discarded all the comments that do not address policy. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marooned (band)[edit]

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

This is a musical group that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Keep- the Renaissance Faire community is a smaller one, but it's certainly larger than many other recognized communities, and it's been around a long time, too. The members of Marooned have been active participants in the community for many years and are well known. They are valuable contributors to keeping folk music in general (and pirate music in specific) a living, growing musical genre. Their contributions to historical and charitable projects alone would qualify them for inclusion in any reference work. - Juli McCarthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.202.29 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This musical group has received several awards within its community and has been performing since 1995. While Renaissance Festivals are a niche market, I'd argue against their being deleted simply because they are part of a niche. They have been reviewed within the Pirate community (Bilgemunkey Pirate Radio, Celtic MP3s Magazine, Renaissance Festival Music Podcast - All of which are notable members of the festival community) and won awards via the Renaissance Festival Music Podcast's annual "Renaissance Festival Awards", which certainly makes them notable within that community.Ceronomus (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see you've added 19 references since the nomination. However, I don't see that any of those references, nor any of the ones present in the article at the time pof nomination qualigy as reliable sources for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Bilgemunkey Pirate Radio was, at the time it aired, the #1 source for all things relating to Pirate Music. While the show is now off the "air" it still has a solid following. I'd say that is notable. The Renaissance Festival Awards from the Renaissance Festival Music Podcast (which include the Renaissance Faire Hall of Fame awards) are followed by every major player in the Renaissance Faire community (and the major faires, such as Southern CA, Bristol, and New York are certainly quick to mention their wins and to acknowledge them with pre-recorded statements) and have since been picked up in annual print by Renaissance Magazine. Again, this is something that is certainly notable within this market. That you choose to ignore sources notable in the genre doesn't make them non-notable, it just means that you are disregarding them. Indeed, within the Renaissance Faire community the only "notable" sources are the Renaissance Festival Music Podcast, Renaissance Magazine and, to a lesser degree, RenFaire magazine. The Pirate Music and reenactment communities sources of note are No Quarter Given magazine, Mutiny magazine, Pirates Way magazine, Pirate magazine, and Bilgemunkey. That you refuse to recognize these sources reflects more on your lack of knowledge in these particular scenes than the notability of the sources. You choose to disregard the most notable awards in the Ren Faire music category as notable so... I don't know as anything will change your mind. Ceronomus (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and .musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It looks notable enough to have a article.Wgolf (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdboyc (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Wgolf and Bdboyc: Simply declaring theyre' notable is not helpful. Please explain how they are notable with evidence to support your position. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm actually a fan of this genre and the fact that they are part of at least 10 recordings is not insignificant in this field. I think multiple awards and press releases are relatable links for notability. Caffiendcc (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This group has been a defining influence both in the history of the national Renaissance Faire circuit musicians, as well as many Fandom and Gaming related conventions. They've contributed thousands of dollars in donations to multiple charities, as well as hundreds of hours of their time both towards performance and the conservation of the music created and performed by folk artists from all over the entire country. They have existed as a group for almost twenty years, and have friends and followers all over the world. This is by definition notable. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE.Cavalaxis (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have watched this group perform in venues across the united states including but not limited to Ren fairs and conventions. This combined with their work on multiple charity albums with a variety of notable artists places them in a noteworthy category. While the Ren community,pirate based community and gamer communities are all specialized, the fact that this group has been seen by thousands of people attending events for these communities should not be ignored. To do so insinuates that the communities themselves have a lesser value because of the focused nature of the fandom. I believe the draw of Wikipedia is that it is a source of information for the public, by the public.please do not invalidate the very mission of Wikipedia by make a value judgment on what subcultures are not worth representing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhatfield42 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article can't link to oral history or paper history (Ren Faire and Con programmes and flyers), which are just as valuable a source as any online news article or website. Twenty years of history and contribution is notable.Cavalaxis (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This group has albums available on Amazon and ITunes. They have performed in many environments including renaissance faires on both coasts, a promotional event for A&E, and every year for around 9 years for GenCon (the biggest gaming scifi/fantasy convention in the US I believe - though a couple of those years were at the smaller offshoot GenCon SoCal). They have been around since 95. One of the members held a significant position (artistic director I think) at the Bristol Renaissance Faire for multiple years. Another member has many audiobook and other voice over jobs under her belt. They are referenced in a book of sea shanties for one of their versions of a popular song. They helped to create a series of CDs of pirate music that donates all proceeds to New Orleans schools to buy musical instruments for the kids to learn with (in the wake of Katrina). They were approached by the creators of the role playing game system Sixcess to create a soundtrack for one of their settings - that is their newest cd, released in August of this year. Two of their members also created Modern Bard to collect and preserve renaissance faire music in all formats and from all performers possible. This is a group who is both constantly creating And constantly giving back to the music world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhoraigh (talk • contribs) 07:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Dug through my songbook collection and found the book you are referring to. Citation added to the Mel Bay publication.
- Comment - http://www.noquartergiven.net/ae_sd.htm An article mentioning Marooned's performance at the A&E Horatio Hornblower event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhoraigh (talk • contribs) 08:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the band Marooned meets the criteria for notability based on the previously cited references to contributions to the Renaissance and gaming genres in this discussion, and that the Wikipedia page should be kept. Marooned has been has been performing as a group at Renaissance Festivals since 1995 and has been an official performer at GenCon for over a decade. This years' GenCon attendance was a record unique attendance of 56,614, ^[1], and featured artists are exposed to a significant number of those attendees during scheduled performance times. Additional third party sources covering or supporting the notability of the band Marooned: ^[2] - GenCon article identifying Marooned as a featured GenCon performer for 11 years. ^[3] - interview with Marooned by Indie Nation (indienation.fm). Marc.a.bruner (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have seen this group at multiple conventions and other venues for a very long time. They are extremely recognizable and sought out for their long history and depth of their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmessnet (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I loved hearing their music on Bilgemunkey radio.. This Band is relevant to the Pirate Community ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.125.170 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Properly evaluating the grounds this deletion request is based upon requires a review of Wikipedia’s standards regarding use of primary sources and notability guidelines for music, and then applying a test of reasonability. Maintaining standards is crucial for Wikipedia to sustain credibility and continue to be a primary source of information beneficial to all users. However, we must guard against an overzealous application of those standards which results in the deletion of articles that demonstrate comparable values through the use of subculture resources. The article in question provides over 30 references; the majority of these references are acceptable if we apply genre-specific values for recognizing reliable sources. For example, “Renaissance Festival Podcast”, sponsored in part by “Renaissance Magazine”, founded in 2005, offers bimonthly podcasts of notable music and entertainment from Renaissance festivals in the U.S. and is currently compiling data for the 10th Annual Renaissance Festival Awards, which Marooned has received twice. Or we can look at “Bilgemunky Radio”, a respected source of information, which produced over 200 episodes in 5 years, and reviewed multiple album releases by Marooned. While these sources may not be comparable in size and prominence to “Rolling Stone Magazine” podcasts to the general public, they are well known in the community comprised of members devoted to Renaissance festivals, Irish folk music, sea shanties and a cappella groups. Credit should be given to this article for being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works as well as for placing in a major music competition. Marooned has played multiple venues across the United States, including nine years at GenCon, one of the largest gaming conventions in North America, which reported over 56,600 unique attendees this year. Again, the venue may not be comparable to the New York Philharmonic concert hall, but considering the record for highest attended indoor concert in U.S. history was set this summer (by George Strait at the Dallas Cowboy stadium) with an attendance of only double that number, it would seem that credit should be given for meeting this standard as well. By utilizing reasonable, comparable standards for this genre, Marooned would be considered notable by meeting more than one of the listed criteria. LVShadyLady (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Let's not forget that Indie Nation has been around and covering independent musicians since 2010 and is certainly a reliable source in the indie-music scene.Ceronomus (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Marooned is a notable pirate/renaissance faire band with a prolonged history, established and regular release schedule (11 albums in 11 years, as of 2014) and were one of the first performers to be retained by Gencon to entertain convention attendees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.238.246 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They have won two national awards in their field, have been cited in a book published by Mel Bay, they have been interviewed by IndieNation, have been covered by the Renaissance Festival Music Podcast (sponsored in part by Renaissance Magazine) as well as a number of others (Bilgemunkey Pirate Radio, RenRadio, CelticMP3s Magazine, Celtic Geek Podcast) and even have had coverage from the Indianapolis Star. They have performed at a major event (40k+ people) for eleven years. I think LVShadyLady above sums it up fairly well. Ceronomus (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bunch of minor mention mostly as part of promotional material is not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even if one disregards the national awards in their field (which is an inclusive factor for notability, not an exclusive one), I don't see a whole lot of "promotional material" being cited here in this conversation as grounds for notability. As mentioned above, there is plenty of independent, reliable, coverage. Ceronomus (talk) 19:51, 26 September 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 08:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lonesome orchestra[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources to establish the notability. Google news search returns no hits [13], and Google Books search also returns no hits [14]. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 September 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 (warn) @ 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Through the use of inline citations I hope to have added more strength to the article and a better overwiew of independent sources. Kind regards Arthur Kegels (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page with independent sources and hope and trust this will apply as reliable and relevant. Lonesome Orchestra is relevant internationally partly because of their work with The City of Prague Philharmonic. Kind regards, Arthur Kegels (talk) 07:31, 17 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was stated as being an orphan. This is no longer the case as both Emmy Verhey's article and City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra refer to the Lonesome orchestra page. Arthur Kegels (talk) 19:11, 23 September 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) 07:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, the page has one contributor, User:Maldoror2, who has now blanked the page twice. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Edward Snowden Affair: Exposing the Politics and Media Behind the NSA Scandal[edit]

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

No independent, reliable references except for local press. Fails WP:NBOOK. Bgwhite (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Article fails WP:NBOOK. In fact, the title of the article is a mess.Wikicology (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite Personal Bias

On author's main page Michael Gurnow it clearly states he was interviewed about The Edward Snowden Affair on Boston, Phoenix, Chicago, and New Orleans radio.

Erskine Overnight radio interview
The Howie Carr Show radio interview
Ringside Politics with Jeff Crouere radio interview
Edgington Post radio interview
The Mark Johnson Show radio interview
Homeland Security Today's expose on The Edward Snowden Affair

Book has also been reviewed by Pure Politics: http://purepolitics.com/

Book review of The Edward Snowden Affair by Dr. Wilson Trivino

Book is even still listed on Amazon.com as best seller in Civil Rights.

Bgwhite also deleted mention of these citations on author's main page prior to suggesting page deletion, suggestive of political or personal bias.

Suggestion this admin. be reported for deliberate abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldoror2 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned readdition (H2 heading removed) done by Hisashiyarouin (talk • contribs) 08:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note the author has a biography here, making the article obviously unsuitable for deletion (though perhaps suitable for redirection and/or merger, I haven't looked exhaustively for sources or anything). Wily D 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WilyD, the notability of a book is independent of its author. The author of a book can be notable, that does not implies that the book itself its notable. Also note that this discussion is about the notability of the book and not its author. Suggesting a redirect could be appropriate. Wikicology (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why you'd direct that nonsequiter to me. Wily D 08:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD, I don't mean otherwise. Accept my apology if you find it offensive.Wikicology (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. You're just not getting your point across. (Or phrasing it awkwardly or something, I don't know). Wily D 09:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author article started no more than 10 hours earlier than this by the same user. Perusing user contribs reveals Maldoror2 has edited very rarely outside Michael Gurnow/Blue River Press books. Also just in related articles (in the mainspace) are being nominated by creator by WP:U1 inappropriately. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 08:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: With edit summaries "This book does not exist" (The Edward Snowden Affair) and "The person it is about does not exist" (Michael Gurnow) "This is a vanity page created by the business's staff" (Blue River Press). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 08:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hisashi, Maldoror2 has stated they are the PR person for the book's publisher. Bgwhite (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are unable to review said comment, because the Userpage has been conveniently deleted at request of Maldoror2 —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the aforementioned edit summary "edit summaries "This book does not exist"" is pretty clearly meant to be facetious or tongue-in-cheek. —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need to also remove his name from the list of books about Edward Snowden as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Further_reading (even though maldoror2 wasn't the one responsible for citing it). Also if someone would, contact Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, Books-a-Million, abe, Hastings Entertainment and all the libraries worldwide--http://www.worldcat.org/title/edward-snowden-affair-exposing-the-politics-and-media-behind-the-nsa-scandal/oclc/863078360--and tell them they are selling/checking out a book that isn't noteworthy. (And, for God's sake, tell Amazon.com to take it off their "Civil Rights" bestseller list.) We might also email Google and tell them the 7,000+hits on the author and book title should be blocked: https://encrypted.google.com/#q=the+edward+snowden+affair+michael+gurnow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldoror2 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some sources which show how the book meets the criteria set out here, please provide them. Otherwise, your behaviour is verging on disruptive. For my part, I !vote to Redirect to Michael Gurnow. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of books are bestsellers and don't have articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits. There's no question that the book exists, but there's also no question that it is not (yet!) notable. No objections to a redirect, as proposed above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'd agree with a merge, redirect, or delete. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy as per request. Bluerasberry, feel free to ping me for a U1 deletion if the requested sources to not show up in due time. kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CenterWatch[edit]

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

Ken Getz at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Getz is the founder of this organization. Neither he nor this organization seem to meet notability criteria with identified sources. I talked with him and he told me he would provide sources but has not followed through. Could I have this userfied to user:bluerasberry/CenterWatch until the article has better backing? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as suggested. Currently does not qualify for an article, but maybe Bluerasberry can improve it and bring it back. --MelanieN (talk) 08:23, 17 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:47, 23 September 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Sphilbrick per CSD U1. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nature's Housekeeper[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Has yet to be published. A search of its working title reveals no references on Google. Bgwhite (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This book has been issued an ISBN, thus it approved for publication by the Library of Congress.

Moreover, Why are ISBN-granted/LOC books not worthy of inclusion but "upcoming films" are?

Here are a list of all the "upcoming films" listed on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=is+an+upcoming+film+by&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldoror2 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author's page Not enough material to show notability at the moment. Suggest redirecting to author's page (it is covered on that page under Current Works) and recreating the article once notability is demonstrated through media interest/reviews/etc. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only editor who did not !vote delete seems to concur with the conclusion that it is WP:OR ("This edit is an amalgamation"). This is inappropriate for Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate Mall Attack Controversy[edit]

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

Full of original research. Majority of refs come from YouTube, Scribd and Photobucket. Alot of one or two sentence statements with nothing to tie them together. Doesn't make sense. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree here, due to the unencyclopedic style and use of sourcing. I'm not even sure what the key point of the controversy is. There were some confusing media reports during the incident, but this is entirely normal for a breaking news story. It is not in doubt that the attack took place and that around 70 people died.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is conceivable that something like this could be an article, but this could never be it. NOTNEWS, OR, poor writing, unreliable primary sources, etc. etc. Delete. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what the controversy is, but it looks like the creator is trying to manufacture it. Agree that some of this material could be used in the attack article, but this doesn't really work. Too much original research and synthesis. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are all kinds of problems, esp. with the police/military response; that's been in the news plenty, and I assume that is already in the main article. "Controversy" is of course just a buzzword. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, borne on the back of a litany of unreliable sources, giving undue weight to an alternative version of events that is, broadly, a conspiracy theory. Pick any two arguments for deletion from that description. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete beyond being an WP:OR conspiracy theory, its pretty incomprehensible. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. textbook example. it belongs on a private blog, not on WP.Cramyourspam (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a host of text & information without a clear point being made. Agreed with the original research as well. ///EuroCarGT 21:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HI - All links and citatations are to previously published, public information. Sites such as photobucket or scribd host clips, images, of unchanged, previously published, public information. - Thank you ESPEEarrow (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Start by citing the original sources then. Until then, it's just no. And if those links go to copies of copyrighted publications, they might well be copyright violations. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original reseach. It is an encyclopedic (perhaps not to the proper specific format) compilation of all (as much) public information that has come out about the regarded sections. The Westgate attack was shrilled with controversy. No mainstream media outlet has summarized the entirety of the topics addressesed in the edit in a particular single report (though some in single reports have covered various topics indluded in edit); but no single piece of evidence or citation linked in the edit has not already come out, been published, or broadcast. Every citation is attributed to a mainstream media outlet, official report, or public information; all of which can be already be found online. All primary source files cited and linked-to;as well as clips and freeze-frames of already published information. Other sections or Wikipedia articles such as biographies cull information from multiple sources; again, perhaps not in appropriate format, but in that regard this is the same. The last main edit on the Westgate shopping mall attack page, about media coverage, doesn't have any citation, and inaccurately describes Terror at the Mall as a BBC documentary, though it was aired first by H.B.O. on September 15th. ESPEEarrow (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unencyclopedic POV fork of Westgate shopping mall attack. Cherry-picked details strung together in classic WP:SYNTHESIS manner to allege a controversy where (as far as I can see) none exists. I hate to see Wikipedia have an article supporting this kind of nonsense, even for a week. Is it possible to SPEEDY or SNOW close this? --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi No images are edited. No clips are publicized or broadcast under a different name other than the original publisher. Each and every single link is true, fully true; but furthermore, un-tampered with and pure. Nothing is changed. It is what it is. Each fact is what each fact is. Each link is each link. It can be clicked on and seen and seen right there. The H.B.O. show stated itself as simply as it could the last footage of attackers is on the evening of September 21st. The Kenyan government itself has clearly stated the attackers were killed on September 23rd; and had been fighting them continuously until then. It is a fact that the Kenyan government says shooting between the military and police inside the mall never occured. It is a fact that we see reported evidence of it in the form of multiple photograpsh of a police officer being carried out of the mall. What exactly is more direct than direct? Cherry-picked details? Its a text edit of 200k with 876 links/cites. Public information, obviously wrapped to particular format, should always be able to find sanctuary on Wikipedia.ESPEEarrow (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not getting it. The article is a string of statements, strung together. The obvious purpose of collecting all these carefully selected facts is to reach or imply a conclusion - in this case, the conclusion that there is controversy over what happened. That type of approach is not allowed here. Please read WP:SYNTH; that is what you are doing. Until we have reliable sources SAYING that there is doubt or controversy about what happened, we cannot have an article here that leads to that conclusion, much less says it in the title. I'm sure there are websites where your carefully constructed approach will be welcome. But Wikipedia is not one of those sites. BTW I hope you kept a copy of all this, because it could be deleted at any time. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi' Wikipedia articles are strewn with controversy (or otherwise titled) sections. Of course there is controversy. Yes, the edit is not trying to slip that through with implication or innuendo. That has been reported on widely in mainstream media repeatedly. Every link is to something that was already previously published - and virtually always in the context of it being controversial -- All of the cctv footage; everything.

On Wikipedia there are controversy sections in biographies; discographies; entries regarding single events. As for this edit, you can find a mainstream news report about each and every sub-section of this edit. You could find multiple reports from a single outlet on multiple subjects of the edit, and you can find single reports regarding multiple subjects of the edit.

I'm not trying to say anything about the format/style. It's a lot of information. There are a lot of words. Help would be great. But also there are a lot of complete sentences. It is mostly in the list of cctv footage in which there is dense lack of full sentences. But I'm not even in a position to say anything about the format/style. I'm not trying to argue about that.

But never, anywhere, does it say in a single sentence - and particularly one that is not attributed to an other party - anything about a general conclusion regarding the attack. And all is cited; not only collectively in paragraphs but throughout statements. When it says ' here is a picture of an attacker doing x ' there is then a link to an image or clip from a media house that already published a report on it of that attacker doing x, and the name or title of the outlet often visible. In regards to the video clips, most of the video clips even have the narrative overlay from the original media broadcast!

I'm not trying to say anything about the format/style. But as for the other half - and very fundamental - tenant the argument for … not fixing, but Deleting.. this edit leans on, its baseless. It must say a lot about the style, because it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the rigor and standard applied to citation of public already-published reportage. I don't understand - and I mean this genuinely - what specifically about the content of this information renders it worth being deleted; immediately deleted, or not worth the ilk of Wikipedia, as opposed to being worth cleaning up. A 9/11 conspiracy theory page is worth cleaning up…but not about a terrorist attack in Kenya?

This is an edit about the controversy regarding the Westgate attack. It's not an edit claiming to be an edit about the attack. Or baseball. It's an edit about the controversies regarding the attack - -ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REPORTED ON - and reported on WITHIN THE CONTEXT of being controversy.

The purpose of collecting and organizing ANY information is to give a body of work. A shape. That's what the composition or sentence-by-sentence writing of information is. I don't think any sentence in the world can escape that. What is unfair is for those sentences or words to explicitly state or conclude things that cannot in that summation be attributed. I'm not trying to pretend its not an edit about controversies regarding the attack, but the sentences also don't try to do more than they as single sentences do. They are beholden to their own selves and don't speak for other facts or statements. It is what it is, it's a lot of controversy; obviously it has a shape. Yes, what the entry does is spell out as many instances as it can regarding various topics of controversy surrounding the attack. Which have been reported many times. I am not here to say that the language is perfect; or that it's not problematic (if everybody is saying so; I don't doubt that). But the language also does not take leaps attribution does not go, and it is not explicitly in any way stating a general thesis about what happened during the attack; a conclusion to the controversy, or anything like that. – If there are problems in those terms with sentences or passages it's not like I oppose that being changed. -- Furthermore, everything is cited and attributed. All the videos, from youtube, or photobucket, or wherever, are all rather clearly the clips from broadcasts that - in many of the instances - were published on Youtube or other sites by the media company itself. Maybe the logos aren't clear in the corner of the videos, but that's all the original footage. Other places there are still images and clean clips (not merged together) of the original broadcasts. Absolutely nothing has been changed. And absolutely have the previous broadcasters/publishers of the reports published them in the context of controversy. Of which this edit has catalogued...

RE: this sentence - "Until we have reliable sources SAYING that there is doubt or controversy about what happened, we cannot have an article here that…." - THEY ALL HAVE - CNN; Al-Jazeera; The Guardian; Sky News; New York Times; Christian Science Monitor; HBO; AP; Reuters; BBC… ALL OF THEM have written/reported about various aspects of controversy regarding the attack; and reported so within the context of controversy. You can find a mainstream news article/report about every single sub-section included in the edit. And multiples. Kenyan media reported widely on looting; duration of the attack; and whether attackers escaped. Al-jazeera widely covered disparate statements between Kenyan gov and Al Shabab, as well as discrepancies in numbers of missing people. HBO covered the initial security response.

When Kenyan media publishes leaked surveillance footage from inside the mall of soldiers looting the grocery store; and then the chief of Kenyan police threatens to arrest journalists covering the attack, and then the international media reports on it as a subject of controversy; that's a subject of controversy. When the New York Police Department publishes a report alleging the terrorists likely escaped on the first night; and then the FBI fires back alleging the terrorists were killed on the third day; and the State Dept. distances itself from NYPD; and New York Magazine writes about all of it as an issue of controversy; its an issue of controversy! Everyone has reported on issues of controversy regarding the Westgate attack,and again, virtually always within the context of it being controversial.

The edit is not trying to be anything it's not. And yes - its an edit about controversy. So its going to be about the controversies. It is absolutely one million percent back-able; already published; cited; and cited by big great reliable sources, like every single major media house that reported on the attack. This edit is an amalgamation. Some of the original reports were broadcasts and of course you can view any and all of them, and see how they clearly and in their own words explicitly talk about controversies regarding the attack. The work is too energy-consuming to sully or saturate with inuendo or implication. It's an entire edit about controversy. Its not trying to trick anyone, or unfairly change the direction of a narrative. There is no attempt to try to imply that controversy occurred. It is stating that there have been many reports of controversy regarding the attack, and goes into the various subjects, linking back to original reportage. Controversy surrounding the attack has been extremely and widely covered. There is absolutely nothing controversial about that. Again, I'm not trying to speak of format/style.

Again, It's not like I oppose sentences/passages/issues/problems being addressed/changed/fixed/cleaned, etc. ESPEEarrow (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious original research/conspiracy theory. If anyone wants to go through the sources and see if there's anything the main article hasn't used, more power to them but nuke this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The main article is quite enough. Agree this is original research. There is no encyclopedic style, not sourced and no need to spend time in attempt to repair. Not needed. Fylbecatulous talk 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Dix[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BLP requirements. It has no reliable sources and no indication of notability. Nathan121212 (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be re-categorised under Biography. Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The problems with the article lie not with notability but a lack of biographical information on the author. I have added in biographical and interview references where I can find them, as well as including a list of the author's award wins (4) and nominations (13). These alone indicate a high level of notability within the Australian sf field. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's definitely "niche" notability but there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think the nominations add much (some of those awards just nominate anyone who writes sci-fi because there aren't that many local sci-fi writers) but being a multiple Ditmar Award and Aurealis Award winner is enough for me. And to be clear, he didn't win "fan fiction" categories - these are best long fiction and best novel awards. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author has won several significant awards. Plus, he's gotten some coverage from reliable sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lil jay[edit]

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

Hoax? I'm not finding anything about this person. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 05:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BASIC and WP:V and violating WP:OR, WP:PROMO, and probably WP:HOAX, and if all that falls through, WP:TNT. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax.I am One of Many (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt per above. Article already recreated numerous times, repeated CSD removal by author.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 09:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "salt" the article mean? And also, please change my nomination to AfD to Speedy Delete. —Gaff ^ταλκ 14:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:SALT, to prevent continued article recreation or for other reasons.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 RB Leipzig season[edit]

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

Not a team in a professional league. Fails WP:NSEASONS. Kingjeff (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for deletion:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 05:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 05:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the rule about it on wikipedia. Nikebrand (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2002–03 Dynamo Dresden season 2001–02 Dynamo Dresden season 2000–01 Dynamo Dresden season1999–2000 Dynamo Dresden season1998–99 Dynamo Dresden season1997–98 Dynamo Dresden season1996–97 Dynamo Dresden season1995–96 Dynamo Dresden season2003–04 Dynamo Dresden season--Nikebrand (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found it: "

Individual seasons

Shortcut: WP:NSEASONS Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements. Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created. For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US collegiate American football team and a US collegiate fencing team enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage): A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable. A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable. For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g., Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline).

In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikebrand (talk • contribs) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article" supports a merger, not keeping the individual club season article. Kingjeff (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Past consensus has been that season articles are only worthwhile for clubs in fully professional leagues, and none of these seasons were spent in such a league. Number 5 7 21:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Per WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS. Low level team in non-FPL. Article contains no sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current state. Note however that Wikipedia:Notability would override all football project guidelines and if somebody cared to search for reliable sources and adequate coverage the articles should be free to be recreated. Given the somewhat controversial nature of RB Leipzig such coverage, online and offline, would surely exist. But it's up to the creator, or anybody else interested in the subject to provide and add those. Calistemon (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stay - Due the reason that RB Leipzig has been promoted in such a record time era into the 2. Bundesliga. This has never been reached by other teams before. You can ask everybody from the media. The first club which moved from league 4 into the 2nd without pauses. That is German tradition they call it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikebrand (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In opposite to Dynamo Dresden which had played many years in the amateur leagues. Imagine they will play in the first Bundesliga the next season? All would say it is the blitz promoter and would increase the interest for the seasons before.--Nikebrand (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to establish that these articles based are notable based on WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bild" moderator says it here http://www.bild.de/bundesliga/2-liga/saison-2014-2015/spielbericht-rb-leipzig-gegen-vfr-aalen-am-1-Spieltag-36609706.bild.html with the record. --Nikebrand (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need more than one source. You could take that if it has anything to do with the articles in question. But you need to go to other news outlets like kicker.de and Die Welt and see what they have for the articles in question. Kingjeff (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikebrands statement that RB Leipzig is the first-ever club in Germany to march through from the fourth division to the 2. Bundesliga is unsourced and also completely incorrect. VfB Eppingen did the same thing between 1978 and 1980, 34 years before RB Leipzig. Calistemon (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - From 2009 to 2013, RB Leipzig played in the Oberliga and Regionalliga which are not considered professional leagues. I think the record or any other facts are not good enough reason to create the season articles. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FUCKuSM[edit]

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

This looks like it lacks credibility and fails WP:GNG, but since it refers to a Korean language concern, I'm not going to CSD or PROD. I can't find anything credible, but again, I don't speak Korean... —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manolo Pedrosa[edit]

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

Look, I'm a fan of Pinoy Big Brother (or at least I was, until All In happened). However, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. He just got out of the PBB house less than a month ago, and the only actual acting stint he has so far is a role in yesterday's episode of Maalaala Mo Kaya. He may have some coverage here and there, but that's as an (evicted) housemate, not for his (soon-to-begin) showbiz career; thus, not an establishment of notability. No prejudice against recreation once his career takes off (which, given the history of previous PBB housemates, shouldn't take long), or against a redirect to All In's article until such time occurs that he gains independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:08, 14 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Falls under too soon. Wgolf (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wgolf. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 01:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afrotraction[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is this news item also but I doubt this and other sources (now in the article) show a clear notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:01, 14 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Murić[edit]

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

Not sure how notable this award is but I have been unable to find anything about her-looked up her name and got links to places like Facebook and Linkin for different people with the same name. Wgolf (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Forgot to put this-but has been a orphan for three years. Wgolf (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Awards for young poets are intended to promote them. No matter how notable an award of this kind may be, I doubt it gives -only by itself- notability to a poet. To say the least, it is TOOSOON. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I agree it does fall under too soon. It's not like its the Oscar, Tony, Emmy, Grammy, Globes or any of those awards either I should add. Wgolf (talk) 15:51, 14 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I also looked in Google for "дина Мурић" and all I got was two hits from the "Montenegro fund for minorities" and one hit with a list of publications in which she is mentioned. "МУРИЋ, Дина" only shows up her name in 8 library lists. Searching for "Dina Murić" mainly shows hits of other people with the same name. - Takeaway (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue (band)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Sources include two short articles in what appear to be local French news sites, and the third is a blog; nothing to establish WP:GNG or WP:BAND. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it under construction ({underconstruction}) for some reason. The band meets WP:BASIC at some point. I am a France native and they (the band) is very popular. We might need a native French. Please stop tagging randomly if you don't know the notability of the band, in their country. Bdboyc (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI assure you that I did not tag this randomly. What does "the band meets WP:BASIC at some point" mean? At what point exactly?OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:19, 16 September 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly notable: It would help to see some articles covering them in some depth from french (regional or better) newspapers. There is enough out there in terms of youtube videos, likes on facebook, etc., to suggest they might be notable. They don't have a French wikipedia article, though.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But seeing the only keep is from a blocked editor, and the original creator is also blocked (socks), this doesn't suggest that keep vote is worth a lot.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band spam. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No policy/guideline based consensus to delete. Chinese sources are available and the article should be kept to avoid systematic bias. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fruity Pie[edit]

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

A public television show with nothing about notability. (as amusing and odd as this show does sound part of me wants it to stay for that reason ha ha) Wgolf (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't understand how this is more or less notable that any other children's show page, for example Thomas_the_Tank_Engine or Hook_Book_Row. A casual google search shows it airs every morning in the US and presumably in Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.16.12 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 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 02:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has apparently won an Asia Television Award. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rsrikanth05-ooh good find, sounds like that could be notable. I think when I was looking over the article it sounded like a local show that isn't anywhere else but some town or something. Maybe a userfy?Wgolf (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could. Hey @Brain:, please have a look at the discussion here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not sure how notable the award mentioned above is (given that it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article), but a search of its name in Chinese (水果冰淇淋) suggests that it has had coverage in reliable sources (such as the Epoch Times). I can't understand Chinese though, and Google Translate in unreliable for these things, so I'm requesting that a Chinese-speaking user take a further look at search results. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Academy of Hope[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Totally non notable, no substantial sources can be found. I'd have used A7 except it survived a previous afd as non consensus many years ago. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Surprisingly, I found the following sources, at least some of which are reliable and offer significant coverage: African Sun-Times, Washington Post, American Chiropractic Association, On Purpose (book). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great work Dr. Fleischman! I was about to say delete but those are good sources, no question. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work DrFleischman. That prompted me to search HighBeam and I found more; I add six references to the article including a nice in-depth article from the Washington Post for 2005. I am One of Many (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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