< 17 October	19 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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 19:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Roi Rotberg[edit]

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

As the article itself says in the lede, "one incident in a long list of pre-1967 attacks." There is no special notability to this one, and the relevant policy is NOT MEMORIAL. Almost the entire content, for good measure, is a long quotation to the extent that would normally be considered copyvio at WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment below DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but consider options. There are editors who clearly plan to memorialise every Jew ever killed by Arabs in Palestine/Israel (but of course none of the reverse) and that has to be opposed. So if this was just another example I would vote for deletion. However I vote to keep this article because the incident is very famous on account of Moshe Dayan's speech made at the funeral. If you search under the common spellings "Ro'i Rothberg", "Roi Rothberg", "Ro'i Rotberg", "Roi Rothberg", you will find many mentions of Dayan's speech, continuing to the present with no sign of abating. So this death was much more notable than most. On the other hand, I don't like the title and the article might be better written as about the speech as there is a fair bit of secondary literature about it. Zero^talk 00:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Incident significant in it's own right. And as part of a major increase in corss-border Egyptian/Fedayeen attacks on Israeli in violation of treaty obligations. Also: "There are editors who clearly plan to memorialise every Jew ever killed by Arabs in Palestine/Israel (but of course none of the reverse) and that has to be opposed." Really? This is an appropriate way to talk on discussion pages?ShulMaven (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, principles are important here. For the record, I will vote to delete Killing of Moshe Barsky if it comes up. Utterly unnotable. Zero^talk 11:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically seconding Zero0000. The death itself isn't really notable except as a catalyst for the speech. Can it be reworked into an article on the speech, with a little bit on Rotberg's death as background? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except, coverage of the incident - not the speech, the incident - in multiple academic books published within the last decade; in multiple polemical books published within the last decade; in academic articles published within the last decade; and in news and opinion articles published this summer and this decade - some of which I have added to the article. (You have to check multiple spellings, and remember that even where the incident is discussed at some length Rotberg's name may appear in the text, but not be indexed. And you would have to explain why Moshe Dayan, Leon Uris and a crowd of a thousand attended the funeral, at a small, remote and dangerous border kibbutz in an era when that meant travel was by slow local buses on lousy roads in an impoverished third-world country (Israel) in the 1950s. And wonder why editors work so doggedly to delete.ShulMaven (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As my mother used to say, "fiddlesticks". Almost every source that mentions the incident mentions Dayan's eulogy, and of the sources in the article all but one indicates that the eulogy is the reason it is famous. The fact is that without Dayan this would be nothing more than a local memory. Zero^talk 14:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm looking at the academic books for starters, and they're basically talking about the eulogy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: request withdrawn I consider that extensive material that has now been added is sufficient to show notability, and it seems reasonable to me that the proper place to discuss the eulogy is in this article. I am withdrawing the AfD request in the light of improvements, but I cannot close it because others have expressed doubts also. I very much wish that people would not write minimal articles where the notability is not obvious. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first sentence needs to be re-worded (it's completely and utterly non-grammatical, and does not define the article title). Also, the article should probably be moved to the name only, for ease of writing the first sentence, and for ease of searching. It may be a WP:ONEEVENT bio article, but an apparently sufficiently notable one. Softlavender (talk) 20:24, 24 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) Natg 19 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Arnold (IT womens activist)[edit]

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

No significant awards, no significant independent references Most of the people in Women in IT are clearly notable, but I don't think the mere inclusion of someone is a sufficient criterion. Certainly this is the case here, for she is the chair of the BCS Women group that produced the book, and she wrote the forward to the book. Apparently she decided to include herself.

I note that the actual contents of the bio sketches in the book are no reliable sources for anything other than plain facts: they were written in the first person by the subjects themselves, and the material that follows the autobios are no better than press releases, for they certainly read as if they were copied from such sources. . DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of independent sources to establish notability WP:GNG. I have added several more sources and are more available. I never heard of her before looking into the sources for this article, but she is clearly an important an notable woman in the world of IT. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The new sources put her just past the bar. Some are just mentions or the same quote, but a couple are pretty significant. Dennis - 2¢ 00:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep more or less per Dennis, I find the Next Women and Computer Weekly references marginally reach BASIC, awards and such tip me over the edge..--j⚛e decker ^talk 18:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Sound Recording Studios[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources are broken links and junk sources. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:07, 18 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, Karlhard (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has this recording studio worked with notable musicians? I see no references to it. By now - delete. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. The article sounds like an advertisement, and I see no indication of notability that is supported by reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:04, 26 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Applied Psychology[edit]

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

A event that has yet to happen-now nothing wrong with that but this is the first one ever, so this might be a one time thing or something, sounds like a banner type thing actually when reading this. Not sure what to make of this.... Wgolf (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a promotional blurb for an event which is yet to happen. Future tense, future tense, future tense... Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. After this event is a historic fact, summon sources and report on it for the record. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 10 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 22:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't know yet if it will be notable... because there's no real way of knowing, yet, whether it will be notable. There's a good chance it might be after the fact but establishing notability prior to the fact (ignoring WP:CRYSTAL) takes a lot more in terms of coverage. There are some things we ignore CRYSTAL for but they include F1 races, Olympics and Presidential elections, not inaugural industry conferences. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one many promotional conferences in many fields of science that are of no importance to their respective fields of science. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:52, 25 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. postdlf (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Farrokhi[edit]

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

Another one of these volleyball profiles that does not meet sports guidelines on here! Wgolf (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: WP:NSPORTS. Quis separabit? 12:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This one is a former Asian Champion (back in 2011). I think notable enough. Mohsen1248 (talk) 12:08, 8 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 00:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yay! A chance for me to vote "keep" on one of these volleyball listings. I've been looking at the talk page for the volleyball project. There's a 2013 thread that talks about possible standards for notability at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volleyball#Notability_guide_for_volleyball. Nothing was settled, but there are some interesting charts. If adopted, it would require participation in the Olympics, Paralympics, and maybe the World Championship. Otherwise, it would require medalling in a major tournament. See the charts for different versions of the list, but in any case gold medalling is listed as good enough for continental championships. The chart may not be perfect, but I don't have anything better to suggest. This person seems to qualify. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I thing being Asian champion is enough to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:38, 15 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 22:39, 18 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. Everybody agrees there are some sources which review the album, but there is some disagreement whether they are reliable. A pretty typical AfD situation. Now, we have more people thinking they are reliable, but the overall participation is not that high, and this is why I am closing this AfD as no consensus defaulted to keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jhazmyne's Lullaby[edit]

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

I doubt the notability of this album. Wikicology (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable "sole studio album from Milwaukee metalcore band" released over a dozen years ago by defunct non-notable band. qualifies for listing on a personal blog, not in the encyclopedia. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and seriously consider WP:DELREV for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Angels 7 Plagues. You'll note that this page, about an album, is sourced with reviews to Allmusic and Exclaim, the latter of which is international news coverage. The article for 7 Angels 7 Plagues, which was not on my watchlist, has unfortunately been deleted after an insufficiently researched deletion discussion. Neither that discussion nor this one made any note of the references already existing on this page, and the group's biography on Allmusic, which is extensive, notes that members of this group went on to play in Dead to Fall and, importantly, Misery Signals. [1]. Another member went on to play in The Damned Things. [2]. That substantiates the group's notability per WP:MUSIC bullets 1 and 6. Ten years on, the group is getting retrospective pieces in weeklies - see this from the Shepherd Express. [3] If the band is notable, that seriously undercuts the claims that the album is non-notable. I would be happy to restore the band article with sourcing if some passing admin happens to see this and can userfy it; otherwise I suppose I'll have to go through the usual channels. Chubbles (talk) 07:27, 9 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 00:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see User:Chubbles/7 Angels 7 Plagues, where I have taken a userfied copy of the deleted band article and outfitted it with corrections and referencing. I am working on moving this to mainspace, but the usual channels are taking a bit longer than I had hoped. Chubbles (talk) 23:07, 17 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 22:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, an album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Wikicology (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article already has references to demonstrate independent coverage. Furthermore, if the band is notable, then an appropriate course of action would be to merge the content into the parent article, not remove it from the site altogether. (Why this is not more common, nor more commonly recognized, baffles me.) Chubbles (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. I can't find any WP:RS on the article. However, noting is notable about the band. The band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Angels 7 Plagues failed WP:NBAND and was recently deleted per a consensus to delete, 10 days ago. If the band is notable, a merge with the band is appropriates. Meanwhile, If the deletion review can restore the deleted page of the band before a consensus is reached here, I will gladly nod to merge this page with it but for now i strongly incline to consider its deletion. Wikicology (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all of these concerns in my two comments supra. Chubbles (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The album has received (favourable) reviews in what can be called reliable sources for this specific, non-mainstream, music genre: 1. HM (magazine) did a review as is mentioned here although no online version is available, 2. Sputnikmusic reviews them here, 3. Chronicles of Chaos (webzine) reviews them here, 4. Exclaim! has a review here, 5. Lambgoat [4] 6. AllMusic [5], 7. HardTimes.ca [6], 8. Friction Magazine [7] . The album has also been mentioned as "a reference" for another band's album here at Metal Kaoz. - Takeaway (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not enough to merit a page on wikipedia. The album has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist or band. However, some of the works must contain information beyond a mere critical review of the recording. In other words, critical reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish the need for a separate article. If all you have are reviews, quote them in the discography section of the artist's or work's article. Besides, the album has not won a number of major awards. Wikicology (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you got the part about that it needs more than a critical review. I don't see that mentioned anywhere on WP:MUSIC. Can you please point out the WP policy that states this assertion of yours concerning an album? Don't favourable reviews of an album in appropriate media actually make an album notable? Are you expecting academic research on subjects like this? Oh now I see, you got this from Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. Well, this might be an older recording, and according to some a classic, but it's not really anywhere close to being classical music. As for your"besides", no awards need to have been won. It only needs to meet one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC if you actually read that page. - Takeaway (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Is a review all that is required by a music album to merit its own page on wikipedia? We are talking about the general notability criteria for notable music album. Does it matter if the album is a Rap, Blues, Gospel,Classic, Hip pop, Pop and any genre you can think of? If it matters then you need to point out the WP: Policy that differentiates these music and the relevant criteria for Pop, Rap, Blues' and so on'. Wikicology (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can relay your argument. WP:MUSIC states that if it meets WP:N, it is notable. On WP:GNG is mentioned that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." And yes, the album is mentioned not in just one review, but it is even mentioned favourably in several independent reviews. WP:GNG does not specify what type of coverage is needed. What you are arguing about is to suddenly include the additional notability guidelines used for assessing classical music recordings. If you read that page, you will see that there, at the top of the page, it mentions in bold letters "The WikiProject Classical music project follows these guidelines:...". I don't know why they have chosen to include these additional guidelines, but they are of no consequence whatsoever for the subject that we are discussing here. - Takeaway (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a great consequence! Dogs are Dogs irrespective of their color. Let wait for other editors to comment. Wikicology (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should policy that is specifically meant for other music be of any consequence here? How the classical music assessment page has been worded is absolutely clear. It has no bearing on this subject so why keep holding on to it? - Takeaway (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Why not? is WP:MUSORG applicable to only classic music? Wikicology (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, the manual of style doesn't specify its limit of application to a certain genre of music but what you are quoting (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines) does. It's that easy. - Takeaway (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for any creative work, critical reviews of the work are the most important sources for proving notability. The guidelines for classical music apply to a special case, works which have been frequently recorded, and the questions is whether a particular recording is important enough for a separate article. a recording of a classical music work is creative, but in a relatively limited sense as compared to the work itself The problem is that there are publications such as Fanfare which attempted to review every possible recording of all classical music--and the general rule would be that a reference must be in some way selective, and not a directory. ( The analogy is presumably to one of many editions of a book, where it will be a very rare specific edition that is individually notable.) Personally, I don't think the analogy holds very well, and I think we need to define critical in that guideline much more carefully. I suspect the proper analogy here is to non-notable mere compilations of works by an artist that have been released in multiple ways--I think we almost never do not consider them notable. I doubt this recording is in that class, but it's not my field, as therefore I am not giving a specificc opinion. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 7 Angels 7 Plagues has been restored. Chubbles (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NALBUMS, which says:

An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

Independent sources are reviews. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:49, 28 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 ♔ 22:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun The Moon The Stars[edit]

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

I prodded this and have been keeping an eye on it since. It's been much improved with references, which addresses one of my main concerns, but the subject still seems non-notable. The references all seem minor – blogs, fanzines, retailers – and the detail that's been added reinforces my opinion that it's a minor band – a pub band in UK terms – which falls well short of satisfying WP:NMUSIC. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:07, 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 19:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cited sources include the formal announcing of the band's label signing and internationally distributed record release from the ALTERNATIVE PRESS, a major media outlet in music that does NOT cover "pub bands". The reason the page has been recently edited to fit Wikipedia's guidelines is because the person formerly active in maintaining it passed away some time ago, and I am now trying to save it before it is removed from the site. It is a work in progress, BUT sources cited include Punknews.org and Alternative Press among smaller blogs that reviewed the band's record, which happens to be available in UK shops. Thanks for your diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.236.22 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC) — 69.160.236.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The band is also ranked on Amazon's National Music charts at #622,921 paid in albums, out of over 5 million releases, putting them in the top 20% and satisfying WP:NMUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.236.22 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't see anything at WP:NMUSIC that suggests 622,921th in Amazon's sales ranking makes them notable. It mentions (#4) that a band is usually notable if they have a chart success in a national chart but that would be a top 30, top 40, top 100 sales position depending on the chart. I've formatted your comments too to make them stand out better.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Amazon sales ranking definitely doesn't prove notability. But, the AltPress citation absolutely does. Jinkinson should have paid more attention to the diversity of the references listed on the page before posting his comment. Jinkinson claimed "the references all seem minor - blogs, fanzines, retailers", but at closer look there certainly are notable citations regarding the physical and digital distribution/release of their records from Punknews.org (one of the biggest punk news sites) as well as the Alternative Press, the largest alternative music publication in North America. The very first criteria listed under WP:NMUSIC "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources..." has clearly been satisfied. The source is reliable, not self-published by the band, and completely independent from the band. And no, I don't think AltPress would publish anything from a pub band, that's a no-brainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.62.63 (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC) — 68.199.62.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment No I didn't, it was JohnBlackburne who said what you are attributing to me, 68.199.62.63. Jinkinson talk to me 23:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 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 00:49, 10 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 22:38, 18 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) 10:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lupita[edit]

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

Too soon? This is a show that wont air till sometime next year so I say either put a redirect to Teresita Reyes (the only cast member with a page) or delete for now. Wgolf (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article should be deleted, still no certainty that such release in 2015 telenovela The user who created the article already has a history of hasty creations items, also has thousands of messages in discussion and all you do is ignore them.--McVeigh (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 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 00:49, 10 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 22:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is too soon and we don't have enough information about it yet for even a stub. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 23 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. Looks like he as now passed the threshold Dennis - 2¢ 22:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juneric Baloria[edit]

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

Had this as a prod but it got deleted-looking at this now-too soon as he just started his first season as a draft pick. Wgolf (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the "floor" of notability for Filipino basketball players is having played at least one Philippine Basketball Association game. This guy hasn't played yet, but he's a rookie on an expansion (crappy) team so there's some hope for him to play once the season starts later this month... –H T D 17:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - He hasn't played professionally yet, but since his first season is coming up very soon, he'll soon be notable. Better userfy this until then. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:14, 5 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 00:51, 10 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 22:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic keep. Played professional for two games now so he's safe. –H T D 18:13, 25 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 22:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Health Innovative Technology Fund (GHIT)[edit]

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

The sources used here are self-published. To meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, third-party sources must be identified to establish WP:Notability. I regret deleting an article by a new user, Inaffziger, but this article is not ready for mainspace. Perhaps it can be wp:userfied while this person develops it.

If one removes all self-published sources, not enough is left here to make an article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

response - I'm working on the sources issue. Will have the article updated within 24 hours to better comply with policies. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaffziger (talk • contribs) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that the topic passes GNG and thus it might be better to tag the article with multiple issues. Dmatteng (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article Updated - I just updated the article and added a number of third-party sources. I believe this addresses the criticisms raised about cited sources. Please let me know if anyone sees further problems that need to be addressed.

Also, please explain what is GNG, and do I need to do anything about that? (referring to Dmatteng comment above) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inaffziger (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG - General Notability Guidelines (most probably :)). Please sign your posts. If you need further help, you may chat in real-time on the IRC. Type "WP:IRC" in the Wikipedia search for more information.Dmatteng (talk) 17:03, 3 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 00:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to focus on in review Per above, the article had been updated with additional sources and better adherence to those sources. In review, please focus on the following sources (all uninterested third party, some peer reviewed) to establish notability:

“Japan in pioneering partnership to fund global health research”, by Andrew Jack, Financial Times, May 30, 2013 “Japan and Partners Team Up to Tackle Neglected Diseases”, by Dina Fine Maron, Scientific American, November 8, 2013 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=japan-and-partners-team) “Joining the Fight Against Neglected Diseases”, Science magazine, June 7, 2013, Volume 340, p.1148 “An Audience with … Tachi Yamada”, by Asher Mullard, Nature magazine, September 2013, Volume 12, p.658 "Japanese drugmakers get serious about tackling dengue", by Daisaku Yamasaki and Sadachika Watanabe, NIKKEI Asian Review, 09/16/2014 (http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Science/Japanese-drugmakers-get-serious-about-tackling-dengue), accessed on 09/30/2014 “Give and It Shall Be Given unto You”, The Economist, November 16–22, 2013, p.72 “Japanese Universities Look to Swat Malaria Bug”, NIKKEI Asian Review, January 30, 2014 (http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20140130-The-wages-of-growth/Tech-Science/Japanese-universities-look-to-swat-malaria-bug), accessed on 09/30/2014 Looking forward to any feedback in further changes to the article are recommended. Thanks! Inaffziger (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)inaffziger[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 18 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. Table has already been re-merged to article from which it was taken, so there are no attribution problems created by deletion. Deor (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caterham Grand Prix results[edit]

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

An article that has unnecessarily been spun out of a parent article, Caterham F1. Results tables are regularly included within team articles. Some teams, most notably Ferrari, McLaren and Williams do have separate articles for their results, but they have been in the sport for decades. Caterham have been in the sport for three. A current discussion at the Formula 1 WikiProject suggests that a team should compete for at least ten years before a separate article for results is created. This article should be deleted, and its content restored to its original location. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you're proposing is a merge. There's no need to discuss this at AfD. Pburka (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - It's already here, and has been for a week, might as well do something with it. Merge seems the obvious choice. Dennis - 2¢ 22:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - noting that the content has already been merged back into the parent article (Caterham F1), so outcomes of "merge" and "delete" are effectively synonymous. DH85868993 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete as per DH85868993. Merging and deleting are the same thing here. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:36, 28 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. Article now contains reliable sources. Nom's stated withdrawal presumably means that she no longer advocates deletion, and the consensus of the remaining opinions is for keeping. Deor (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Days (band)[edit]

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

~~This band lacks notability~~. The hits I got on google were Youtube videos and one site where any band can upload their music – http://www.last.fm/uploadmusic. I do find it very odd that this article should have such a long editing history. I went through the history to try to find some references and still I could find no references to establish notability. The editing history seems to have mostly centered around the deletion and the addition of band members. It is all very confusing. I am not even sure who the bandmembers really were. Even in all this editing history ~~I could find no evidence of notability.~~ No newspaper articles, no book references. Bfpage |leave a message 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A previous revision did contain a now-dead link to this BBC article, but I agree there's not enough there to establish notability. Nick Number (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just googling the band name and one of the members found all these: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:BAND criterion #1 with Michig's sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on... There are still no references in the article. I did remove the deletion template and I will contact the editor who claims to have all the references. He did not insert these references into the article. He possibly may think that providing the references on this discussion page is the same as providing references to the article. I'm sorry to have to revert this window but I don't believe that the discussion is ended. Bfpage |leave a message 16:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am in the process of inserting these references myself. So please do not close this discussion until I have finished that task it will probably take me about 45 minutes. Thank you very much. Bfpage |leave a message 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References 4 and 5 no good... Fansites

I have inserted all of the rest of the references. It is up to the fans now to provide some more content that correspond with these references. Hey, I work in Lepidoptera-I don't know anything about British bands.

I hereby withdraw my nomination for deletion.

Bfpage |leave a message 16:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References to YouTube have been removed. Bfpage |leave a message 17:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 and 5 - the Oxford Mail and Bournemouth Echo are fansites? --Michig (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Keeping this page up sets a precedant to keep up pages of YouTube 'sensations' (I use this term very loosely, as their most 'famous video' only has 20,000 views), which really only take up space. And from reading the sources, the band is unremarkable. I am a music journalist, so I actually do understand this sort of stuff rather well. I did some research and the band was dropped by their record label (no idea when, but as of yesterday they are no longer on the Atlantic Records roster). The band's website domain is also now up for renewal (it expired on October 8th) so my guess is that the band no longer exists. The band also does not have a Facebook page, which nowadays is a must for any serious band. Also, from looking at their last.fm profile (a website that tracks when users listen to songs) they were only listened to about 100 times in the last six months, and predominantly by one or two people. I nominate this for deletion. Also reference articles 3, 6, 9 and 10 are not up to the criterion for acceptable notoriety establishing articles in my opinion (the first three are very short show reviews, and the last is from an online music blog), also none of the articles are from established music journals (signifying their non-notoriety in the music world). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.86.80 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing them as a 'YouTube sensation' simply because the article mentions YouTube doesn't make a lot of sense. They were a major label commercial pop band who split up some time ago, so not having a current website or facebook shouldn't be a surprise, and this sort of band doesn't get a lot of coverage in music mags because they were commercially oriented rather than arty or cool. --Michig (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps I should not have labeled them as YouTube sensations, but I still think the article is quite weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.86.80 (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charting singles, plenty of references spread all over the place. Note to anon, it's hard to take the "they don't have a rolling stone article/lots of hits so they don't matter" argument seriously. Small bands can be extremely important, buzz or not. Earflaps (talk) 19:38, 18 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 22:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon a review of sources provided by User:Michig, the band clearly passes WP:GNG/criteria #1 of WP:BAND. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 19 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 18:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Daini[edit]

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

Okay so the "refs" that were in here were not about him at all. Looking over this, something seems very off about this article and most of it is unsourced. (The only refs were for companies that he apparently modeled for) Wgolf (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:04, 3 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He did win two silvers and a bronze at the World Championships of Performing Arts,[20] but that's hardly enough. Also, the authority control links are for Benny Blanco, so I'll delete them. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:57, 10 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 22:31, 18 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) 11:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercognition[edit]

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

A total of five hits for the phrase "cybercognition" in google scholar - all to papers by the same author and repeating the same definition verbatim, suggests that this is not a notable topic. The article is mostly a copy of material form the article Umwelt [EDIT: Now the article has been rewritten to make it redundant with the article on Cybernetics, and entirely unsourced.] User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of these articles actually has 100+ citations according to GScholar, but only mentions "cybercognition" once. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:49, 13 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 22:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ashby is certainly notable, but the article avoids saying that he ever used ther term himself. If he did, then it would be possible to merge or redirect it. All that seems to be said is that it is based on the work of Ashby, which by itself means nothing with respect to notability. I may be wrong; I don't have his book at hand--if so, canwe have page numbers and quotations. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 21 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 Chinese Wikipedia entry for 漫步者 (Manbuzhe) covers an audio company called Edifier, which calls into question the veracity of the article. At the same time, the qianlong reference discusses a UAV developed at Nanjing Aeronautical University called the "42架", which loosely translates to "Type 42". If and when the name can be confimed based on reliable sources, a new article can be created. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLA AFEU Stroller[edit]

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

Identical to previously prod deleted version, there is still nothing to indicate this is notable Jac16888 ^Talk 19:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 4 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 07:01, 10 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 22:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd really rather not deal with this article. I don't read Chinese. However, the article has already been relisted twice, with no comments. Is there a mechanism for asking for help from someone who can take a look? [note added after original comment: is it considered canvassing to ask for help from the article creator?] I've spent far too much time on something a Chinese reader could probably deal with it in ten minutes. Here's what I found:
- I took a look at the two references listed in the article. Both are in Chinese. Google translate refused to translate the first reference [21], telling me the page was in Haitian Creole -- and overriding that to use Chinese did no good. Instead, I copyied chunks of text at a time into the translator. The part naming the vehicle translated to: “13:15, "Cruiser" No Air Force Engineering University of appearances. Wingspan of 2.6 meters, 1.75 meters captain, but the weight of 4.5 kg”. The specs match the Wikipedia article. The translated name is different, but I think the Chinese characters are the same, so it's probably just a translation issue (and "Cruiser" may be more apt in this case). However, the portion about the “Cruiser/Stroller is pretty short - the specs, a description of the craft, and a one sentence quote from someone.
- Google took a stab at translating Ref #2 [22] as an entire page, but very little text appeared. When I translated it chunk by chunk, it appeared to be the same as the Ref #1.
- Based on the above, it looks like there's at most one real reference, and a brief one at that. It's very possible there are other articles out there, but I lack the skill to find them. If no one will come forward to help, I think we have to delete the article because proof of notability is currently lacking. I'll withhold my vote for now, to see if we get help. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note, there are about 1,500 articles for unmanned aerial vehicles of China! See List of unmanned aerial vehicles of China for a list of about 1,500 blue links. Maybe some are notable, but it boggles my mind to imagine that there's in-depth coverage, in reliable sources, for each of them. I've left a note at the Aircraft Wikiproject [23] asking for guidance. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know I was wrong about the number of articles. There are 1,500 blue links, but many point to sections within an article; a horribly quick guess would be 150 articles or so. User DexDor said that "...there's no pictures and no indication of how many of each type have been produced so it's hard to tell whether a particular type is just a university project made by combining existing COTS components"[24]. I don't have the stomach to investigate further.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment, asking article creator for help. OK, since no has has objected, I'm going to ping the article creator. @XdeLaTorre:, do you have any comments to the above? Can you provide any reliable sources with in-depth coverage? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or trim and merge into a larger article (e.g. People's Liberation Army Air Force, People’s Liberation Army Air Force Engineering University, PLA AFEU UAVs, Cyclogyro). The article could be recreated if it can be shown that this UAV is more than a student project for a competition - e.g. it has important innovations in UAV technology or it goes into production. DexDor (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [and I unbolded my comments, above]. If someone wants to merge info (per DexDor) that's fine, but I don't know if that's actually a separate action from the delete. I note that the article's creator hasn't responded, but also hasn't made any contributions since 21 September. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:24, 22 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, without prejudice against recreation if some reliable sources are found. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilo Muirragui[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography. From the stated facts (senior economist at IMF for 20 years) it seems to meet notability criteria, but then again it is unsourced. bender235 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As they retired in 1989, nothing can be found on internet about this person except mirrors of the WP article and the one link to an article that they themselves had written. There is a minute mention of their name inside a reference in this article which seems to have been taken from a self-written article that had been published on www.vheadlines.com but is now a dead link too. The IMF website doesn't mention them either, probably also because they had retired in 1989. To establish notability, someone will need access to paper where his name is mentioned as being in the capacity that is claimed in the article. It is of no use whatsoever to research this person on the internet. - Takeaway (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 08:04, 10 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 22:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears not to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no prejudice against recreation if historical, off-line coverage (sufficient to pass WP:GNG) comes to light. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:12, 22 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) 13:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

!mindparade[edit]

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

Lacks reliable sources in the article, and I am not seeing any in Google News or the first few pages of Google Search either. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't come close to WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO: one self released album, and no major coverage. Even if the one local source cited is correct in that the band has "a bright future", they haven't arrived yet. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:59, 10 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 22:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. I see one piece of local coverage and nothing else that meets WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:07, 26 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 Tour of Faroe Islands. Deor (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Tour of Faroes Islands[edit]

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

I couldn't find any evidence that this amateur cycling race has any notability. Fram (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 10:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the main article notable too? If so, merge into that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 13 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 22:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to Tour of Faroe Islands. I don't think we need this level of detail for a single edition of an amateur cycling race, and none of it is verified by the external links. No other articles link to the article under discussion apart from the main article and a redirect, and it's highly unlikely anyone would be able to find this article but not the main article, so I don't see any real need to leave a redirect. I don't know if that main article is notable either, but that's not the question here. Qwfp (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent Tour of Faroe Islands article. I don't disagree with Qwfp but it's a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - amateur race which does not need a subarticle. Kante4 (talk) 19:34, 26 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. ignoring single-purpose accounts, consensus was to delete the article. Secret ^account 04:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parikalpna Award[edit]

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

Can't find anything remotely notable about this award on web. It's mostly Wikipedia's mirror sites and such. One source South Asia Today has covered press releases of events related to this award [25] [26]. Both articles are authored by a certain "Nazia Rizavi". The award is instituted by a Hindi-language author Ravindra Prabhat and in one of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindi Blogging ka Itihas, we established how User:Naziah rizvi and User:Mala chaubey have WP:COI with Mr. Prabhat. Hence requesting deletion for failure to meet notability WP:GNG and using WP for promotion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 1 October 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- This page was nominated for deletion on October 27, 2012 in Hindi wikipedia. the result of discussions Was KEEP.Naziah rizvi (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)— Naziah rizvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I have not contribute this page, but I am reporter of the event of 2013 in kathmandu (nepal)Naziah rizvi (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happens on other wikis has nothing to do here. That's no valid reason to keep the article. And you have contributed to Prabhat's article and probably have contributed to other related articles on other wikis too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think many reliable sources.Moudul hasan (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)— Moudul hasan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hasan, this is your 6th edit on WP and many of your edits after this have been "Delete per above" and "Keep per above" types. We are not here to count your votes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moudul hasan. Subject is notable. Improve the article if necessary, do not delete.Mala chaubey (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks reliable sources. Only reliable sources for me are two offline newspaper article. Online version of HT article doesn't support the cited fact, which anyhow is not related to establishing notability. Rest of the sources are either self-published or blogs. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vigyani: * citations: Information available related to the subject of several important newspapers, as-

:::Others offline newspapers article:

In Eng.-

Hindustan Times, Eng Daily,Lucknow Addition,Date : 08th Aug. 2012, page No. 01, Feature Title : Calling for a code for net effect
The Pioneer,Eng Daily, 28th Aug. 2012, Page No. 02, News Title : Bloggers Discuss need for setting up Blog Akademi
Hindustan Times, Eng. Daily, Lucknow Edition, Date : 08th Aug. 2012, page No. 01, Feature Title : Calling for a code for net effect
Indian Express, Eng. Daily, 5th May 2011, Page No. 03, Author: Sanjib Kumar Roy, Title : 4 year old from Andamans toast of Blogging World
I next, Eng. Daily, 28th Aug. 2012, Page No. 05, News Title : Government regulation not needed
The Hitavada, Eng. Daily,Jabbalpur Edition, 6th May 2011, Page No. 02, News Title : Uttaranchal CM felicitated City writer Girish Billore

In Hindi-

सद्भावना दर्पण,हिन्दी मासिक,रायपुर (छतीसगढ़),जून-2011, पृष्ठ संख्या : 29, समाचार शीर्षक : दिल्ली में इक्यावन हिन्दी ब्लॉगरों का सम्मान (in Hindi)
पंजाब केसरी, हिन्दी दैनिक,दिल्ली संस्कारण,03 मायी 2011,पृष्ठ संख्या : 09, समाचार शीर्षक : ब्लोगिंग अभिव्यक्ति का एक सशक्त माध्यम : निशंक (in Hindi)
हिंदुस्तान, हिन्दी दैनिक, लखनऊ संस्कारण,दिनांक : 28 अगस्त 2012,प्रेष्ठ संख्या :07, समाचार शीर्षक : सम्मानित हुये ब्लॉगर (in Hindi)
राष्ट्रीय सहारा, हिन्दी दैनिक,28 अगस्त 2012,लखनऊ संस्कारण,पृष्ठ संख्या : 07, समाचार शीर्षक : इतिहास बनेगा ब्लॉगर सम्मेलन, देश विदेश से आए 51 साहित्यकारों और मीडिया कर्मियों को परिकल्पना सम्मान (in Hindi)
दैनिक भास्कर,राष्ट्रीय संस्कारण,नयी दिल्ली,दिनांक :29 अप्रैल 2011,लेखक : पीयूष पाण्डेय, आलेख शीर्षक : हिन्दी ब्लॉग सम्मेलन के बहाने (in Hindi)
जनसंदेश टाइम्स,राष्ट्रीय हिन्दी दैनिक, लखनऊ संस्कारण,08 मई 2011, पृष्ठ संख्या-3, स्तंभ: ब्लॉग लोक, शीर्षक : परिकल्पना ब्लोगोत्सव: अभिव्यक्ति का दिव्य समारोह (in Hindi) Thanks.Mala chaubey (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above Links, Notes, references and give natural justice to this page.Mala chaubey (talk) 06:45, 10 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 10 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 22:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I would support a redirect to Ravindra Prabhat until we have enough reliable citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Lack of~~ Inadequate numbers of WP:RS. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Guye - There are reliable citations, but having them is probably not enough, at least here it is not. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We likely need a Hindi-speaking closer to check the above links. If they are not reliable or do not describe the award, the article should be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter- I agree with you sir, but as per discussion of Hindi wikipedia. Subject is notable. This subject was nominated for deletion on October 27, 2012 in Hindi wikipedia. the result of discussions Was KEEP. Mala chaubey (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant. May be in the Hindi Wikipedia POV pushers outnumbered, I do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter- sir, I took part in the debate of hindi wikipedia and I know that the discussion is based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.Mala chaubey (talk) 12:37, 30 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 Martin Barre. Deor (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Meeting (Martin Barre album)[edit]

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

does not cite any references, lack of notability, no claim of significance Owais khursheed (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At worst, Redirect to Martin Barre; at best, if some good sources can be found, keep. No need to delete a full album by someone with a Wikipedia article (not a mixtape, promo-album, EP, bootleg, ...). Fram (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the subject is notable, but the album is not. Redirect to Martin Barre. Can't find a reason to keep it. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 00:17, 18 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 22:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Barre, as Martin is obviously notable, but not everything he does automatically is. The lack of sourcing available is convincing. Dennis - 2¢ 22:43, 26 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. Technically calling it no consensus, although the recently found sources make it lean towards keep. Dennis - 2¢ 22:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Lamonakis[edit]

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

Non notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX and the claims are all based on a minor Boxing title which she has yet to fight for. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX since she hasn't fought for any major titles. Being highly ranked in a minor boxing organization, whose article was deleted at AfD, is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ She does not meet WP:NBOX and an article in a local section of the NYT is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how I missed the ESPNW article. Once there I found her mentioned several times. This led me to look further down my google search (about 7 pages), where I found this[27]. I have to agree with RonSigPi that she appears to meet GNG but not NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like an example where WP:NBOX is not met, but WP:GNG is met. Example articles from different sources include (in addition to NY Times) [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32]. I think the article should certainly be improved, but I think it meets GNG.RonSigPi (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements and cancellations of fights are routine sports coverage as is the reporting of results. A New York state title fight also doesn't show notability. The Times article is just a local color story--every big city newspaper has sections devoted to local neighborhoods or surrounding counties.Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local sources are perfectly acceptable so long as they go beyond WP:ROUTINE and I think the detail of the NY Times and NY Daily News goes beyond that. You are ignoring the profile/interview through ESPN, a major international sports authority, as well as detailed coverage of her fights and training (there are a few more from the Recorder [33] and [34]). I did include one announcement, but that was because it was a UK site and she is an American fighter.RonSigPi (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RonSigPi, kudos for finding good sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 16 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 22:25, 18 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egumball Inc.[edit]

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

Detailed sources given are just press releases, a directory entry and some local news stories about how the company had a small team in a charity running event. The Inc magazine chartings seem like they should be a sign of significance - the article boldly claims that Inc describes the company as the 13th best advertising/marketing company (in the US/world?) - but I can't see that the source supports all of these statements, or find any sources actually writing about the company in any detail. McGeddon (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Sources in the article are all self-referential. In a search I found no independent coverage - unless you count a dozen different threads on discussion boards, criticizing the company and complaining about their sales techniques. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 16 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 22:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there are sufficient independent sources for this company to meet WP:CORP. Deli nk (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 14:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:25, 24 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen[edit]

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

This artist does not appear to have been notable. In a search I found only a few catalog listings, items for sale. I found nothing at Google Books or Google Scholar about him or his significance as an artist. MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PROD was removed by the article's author with the following rationale: "I disagree with the philosophy that an artist must reach a certain level of 'notability' in order to warrant a Wikipedia article. Allen has had his works sold by Christie's, which I think should support his inclusion. If a certain level of notability is necessary for an artist to be included, I think the way that notability is measured should be spelled out in detail and not left to individual judgment." --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are looking for WP:ARTIST and can refer the creator there... —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, appears you already have!... Delete as NN artist.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a mention of him at the Smithsonian Archives (looks like just his name in photo of some other artists, so not much info. Addt'l info.

The AskArt page cites this book as a reference. There might be more in there to assert notability. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, a google search through that book (available here) turns up nothing. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Practically all the information is taken in its entirety from the first reference, and, quotes or no quotes, might possibly be considered a WP:COPYVIO. In any case, none of it shows any notability anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep art history. and he shows up in the selective Art Info listings. plus: one of his paintings sold for close to $100k at christie's auction house. he's a third- or forth-tier american impressionist, but still worthy of encyclopedia inclusion. the article needs more detail and more references, but it still needs to be retained. it is hard to find web-verifiable RS for this era since much of the print-based news hasn't yet been digitized except for the most famous artists.Cramyourspam (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your efforts to expand the article as expressed on the talk page. I request that when seven days are up this nomination be relisted to give you more time. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a source from the Chicago Tribune in 1892 via newspapers.com. Apparently, he was just discovered to be related to the Vanderbilts and therefore became part of the "high society" at the time and their is a claim to him being a known artist of the time. I think the article establishes his notability at that time. Good luck expanding it! I am One of Many (talk) 23:46, 9 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 16:53, 10 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 22:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close now as keep and/or close now as no consensus THe newspaper article describes him as a notable artist of the time. Even though it is from the society section of the paper, it along with other stuff mentioned above warrants a keep. In any case, keeping the article up on AfD for prolonged period is demoralizing to the editors working on the page. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:48, 18 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper A. Vrugt[edit]

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

Although he has a quite long publication record, I think J. Vrugt is not (yet) a sufficiently notable person to appear in Wikipedia, being "just" an assistant professor at UC Irvine (USA). What if all people in academia with 80 papers would have their own wikipedia page? Lnz.Rossi (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GScholar shows an h-index of 38, which would be well over what would be expected for WP:PROF#1 in most disciplines and (even though this is probably a relatively highly-cited discipline) probably adequate here - particularly when six of his papers (on all of which he seems to be the first-named author) have over 200 citations each. His fellowships of the American Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America also both seem quite likely to meet WP:PROF#3, though I am willing to be corrected on this. PWilkinson (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PWilkinson. A clear pass of WP:PROF. The nom provides no valid deletion reasons, apparently arguing that assistant professors cannot be notable. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Well, my point is not so strong as "assistant professor cannot be notable", just saying that there are countless assistant (or even full) professors just as good out there, that just no one ever bothered to put in wikipedia; my naive rule of thumb would have been something like "academics are officially recognized as notable by their peers as soon as they become associate (or even full) professors, and wikipedia should stick to this evaluation". Another point that perhaps I should have mentioned at the time of nomination is that in my opinion the style of the entry is at times "celebratory" ("his creative idea ... perhaps the most elegant way of exploiting the strengths of individual search methods", "He was enjoyed by his students for his humor, informative course, and engaging lectures") and at times trivial (like the fact the he taught a course on Matlab which, as far as it's reported here, looks just like an undergrad introductory course on Numerical Analysis), or not relevant (a picture of him playing softball). However, I am a new wikipedia contributor and honestly I was not aware of the criteria in WP:PROF; I agree that criterion #1 seems fulfilled. Maybe polishing the text would be enough? Lnz.Rossi (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways, your nomination was justified: while we generally do keep articles on academics who have not only published a lot of papers but have, far more importantly, had a number of them cited by quite a lot of other academics or have been awarded honours (like his fellowships) that the great majority of academics could never expect to get, the article itself is definitely too celebratory and is sourced far too much to the subject himself. And while the article should indeed say what he is notable for, we don't need details that would only be of interest to his students and close colleagues. I will cut the article back a bit myself, but feel free to take out anything else that looks as if it shouldn't be there and isn't sourced to what we regard as reliable sources. PWilkinson (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is something wrong here. With that extensive of a publication record and awards, there is no way he would already be a professor in the UC system. I need to see some reliable independent sources on this one. I am One of Many (talk) 23:59, 9 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 16:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot understand the "no way" comment above: the publication record and the position are both documented by reliable sources. What it basically amounts to, is that he has published a great deal very early. It is extremely rare for US universities to let people jump over the successive steps in the hierarchy. Universities are, after all, notorious for stogy administrative customs. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a certain extent. He received his Ph D in 2004, did postdoctoral work and was hired in 2010, probably at step III or IV, which means in the UC system he should have gone up for promotion in 2013 under normal progress. I'm just puzzled by that. His record looks very promising. The article was created in 2010 and wasn't notable then. I just don't see enough for WP:PROF now. I think he will be notable, so I could support userfying the article back into the SPA that created it. I am One of Many (talk) 09:25, 11 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 22:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to pass WP:NACADEMICS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:43, 19 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. WP:WAX means it doesn't matter what other article exist, we can only look at the one before us, where there is a consensus to delete. Dennis - 2¢ 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TISFAT Zero[edit]

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

No indication of notability yet, it may be WP:TOOSOON. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: What exactly separates this page from similar ones (for example, the original TISFAT page, Pivot Animator) which, judging by your perception of lack of notability also fall under this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evar678 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. What separates it from those is that I found the TISFAT Zero article while patrolling new pages and didn't catch the other two when they were created. The Pivot and TISFAT articles were created 7 and 8 years ago when notability standards were different (there wasn't even an official notability guideline when the TISFAT article was created), and I doubt they would have survived if this and this had been created today. I was able to find an About.com review for Pivot Animator, but the notability is still questionable. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to a wiki about software. Inspected every single Google search results for this term and it was too disappointing. As for the offline sources, all I have to say is WP:BURDEN. No prejudice against deleting TISFAT and Pivot Animator; they suffer from the same issue as well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case then please do some inspecting on quite a large number of software (related and otherwise) listed on Wikipedia.

Personally I find it astonishing that articles on Pivot Animator, TISFAT, Pencil2D, and a rediculously large number of software titles are and have been listed on Wikipedia for quite a long time now. Evar678 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil2D at least has a review in a major publication (Macworld). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 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 16:55, 10 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 22:23, 18 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 ♔ 05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ives[edit]

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

Is this person notable enough to have an entry on WP? It also seems like there hasn't been any additional source concerning this living person since the article was created. Xionbox^₪ 16:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (article creator) I believed the subject to satisfy the notability requirements when this article was originally created. I've not yet undertaken a full re-evaluation but don't see any obvious reason to change my mind at this moment. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many more reliable sources out there that could be added to the article. A search on HighBeam returned about 50 sources that are relevant. I am One of Many (talk) 00:17, 10 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 17:16, 10 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 22:22, 18 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. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ahmadvand[edit]

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

There does not seem to be any notability for this rather routine university teacher. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SNOWBALL. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to DGG, it should be considered that Mohammad Ahmadvand is a truly good expert in his field because he has had many publications as well as AN INNOVATION in his field. Furthermore, he is also a journalist and a writer which gives him a high stand among individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.255.85.69 (talk) 22:48, 3 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 17:18, 10 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 22:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The obscure and/or self-published sources used as references do not convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources are primary. There is no independent coverage of him. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:21, 21 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holomex[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, as the only secondary source is a reprinted press release. McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 10 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 22:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. Lack of reliable sources to show WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:15, 26 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. with no prejudice against recreating as a redirect is that really is necessary or beneficial. Dennis - 2¢ 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Grand Prix results[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Virgin Grand Prix results

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

An article that has unnecessarily been spun out of a parent article, Virgin Racing. Results tables are regularly included within team articles. Some teams, most notably Ferrari, McLaren and Williams do have separate articles for their results, but they have been in the sport for decades. Virgin were in the sport for two. A current discussion at the Formula 1 WikiProject suggests that a team should compete for at least ten years before a separate article for results is created. This article should be deleted, and its content restored to its original location. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Why can't this just be redirected to the main article? Pburka (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Prisonermonkeys, there was no need to separate the results table in the first place. The table itself is non-notable and therefore it fails to comply WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Besides, Virgin Racing is a very short article and will keep that way for the time being, so its size isn't an argument for splitting it into two. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 05:30, 19 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Korduene[edit]

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

Non-notable software. For a long time this was a redirect to a list of locations in Armenia. Recently it got overwritten to the current software article. I reverted it once back to the redirect, but was reverted. So instead of editwarring, I'm bringing it to AFD. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The refs and links provided are not RS. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Softpedia is a download site and thus neither entirely independent nor sufficient on its own to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 16:01, 11 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 22:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dialectric. One review, regardless of whether it meets WP:RS, is not enough to establish notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:16, 26 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Fakhryad[edit]

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

Too soon case for sure. Wgolf (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 13 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 22:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced WP:BLP, no clearly-sourced indication of meeting WP:ANYBIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:18, 26 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 ♔ 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Young[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this character, suggesting WP:GNG is not met. Previously sourced to his agent and IMDB, I did verify this actors most significant role, which manages a name check as the son of a minor character--no more--in a 70K article on minor characters in the film in our encyclopedia--which doesn't suggest that WP:ENT #1 is anywhere nearby. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference to Alias (TV series) where Ric Young had a major role. WP:GNG is established. Inwind (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Highbeam refs I've added to the article do have notable newspapers describing his work as "memorable" and "a great supporting cast ... with Brian Cox and Ric Young in particularly good form"; I'm undecided whether there is enough for a Weak Keep, but it probably needs something specific on the subject as such, particularly for a WP:BLP. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 11 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 22:15, 18 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 ♔ 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Troum[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this actor. Sourced to IMDB, which our policies do not consider a reliable source, for three years. Somewhat promotional. Some of this is verificable, through credit listings and a one-sentence quote at [35] describing him as an enthusiastic newcomer, but that's all I've found. Additional sources welcomed as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:46, 10 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 22:15, 18 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 ♔ 18:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Robertson (actor)[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources, or really more than a name check in a credit listing in a reliable source, for this actor, leaving this fellow a long way from WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, rather a lot of appearances in several films to dispute notability. Inwind (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:47, 10 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 22:14, 18 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. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Osborne (actor)[edit]

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

Unable to find references showing notability via WP:GNG, and while George V *might* meet half of ENT #1, I don't see a signficant role in a notable work to meet the second half. Sourced only to an unreliable source, IMDB, for three years. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Played significant roles in multiple television films, therefore definitely notable. Inwind (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant roles in at least 2 important British TV programmes, although clearly could do with improvement. PatGallacher (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:47, 10 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 22:14, 18 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glenda Benevides[edit]

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

topic has not received significant coverage in ANY reliable sources that are independent of the subject, TruthTrumpsData (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article riddled with chains of reflected glory (X has worked with Y who has worked with Z) and non-encyclopaedic text with promotional tone ("you can watch on the our website"). Multiple searches turn up no evidence that the subject is notable. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 11 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 22:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promotional biography of a nonentity. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD and fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:19, 21 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baryalai Samadi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Baryalai Samadi (2nd nomination)

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

A previous AfD was removed shortly after the creation of the page with no discussion. The two references appear to have no substance (a blog and self-published book), the singer does not appear to have an (inter)national profile. The discography does not indicate if there are actual album releases, songs or CD-R/Internet releases. Very questionable notability. Karst (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:48, 10 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 22:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know we're notoriously bad at non-English notability, but I can't find anything in any database about this musician. If anything exists, it's in non-English sources that are beyond my reach. czar ♔ 19:00, 25 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Monnett[edit]

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

Very heavily WP:REFBOMBed. Almost all of the references do not even mention him, and those that do are either passing mentions or directory listings. No hits on Google Books except for books that reprint Wikipedia articles, no reliable non-trivial coverage found. The "discography" is only albums on which he played, and not his own albums. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As TenPoundHammer suggests, there isn't the independent, non-trivial source material out there about this musician yet, and with no charting material of his own he fails the relevent guidelines for musicians. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:03, 11 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 22:12, 18 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 ♔ 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Moore[edit]

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

Non-notable author and performer, fails WP:AUTHOR / WP:NACTOR. All of the references provided are either not independent of the subject (i.e. links to Moore's own writing / staff profile pages on employer websites) or non-notable brief mentions with her name. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 10 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 22:10, 18 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) czar ♔ 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliophobia[edit]

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

The topic of the article is a neologism, based solely on non-reliable websites. As noted at List of phobias, there are many unreliable lists of phobias that can be found online. Wikipedia's policies require that there be reliable sources that discuss a named phobia, before we create an article on it. Srleffler (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I feel that the article has been refocused in a direction that avoids the concerns I raised above.--Srleffler (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a neologism as Dibdin wrote a book with this title in the 19th century and Jackson wrote another in the 1930s. Two books on a topic makes it notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Dibdin's book appears not to be relevant to the topic of this article, being an account of the habits of 19th century book collectors. Note that per WP:NOTDICT Wikipedia articles are organized by topic, not by name. A book titled "Bibliophobia" provides no support to this article at all, unless it is about the specific psychological condition that is the topic of the article.--Srleffler (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jackson's book is interesting, but appears to be about social and cultural phenomena (censorship, etc.) rather than a psychological condition. An article on that would be interesting. If someone wants to go that route almost every sentence in the current article would need to be deleted; perhaps only the first sentence could be kept.--Srleffler (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have now added a third source by Tom Shippey. We now have the work of at least three respectable and notable scholars to draw from. In developing the topic, we should follow their lead, rather than clinging to less reliable conceptions. Andrew (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phobia is non-notable per the same arguments I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chionophobia. The two books are not about the phobia, but are laments about how people don't read enough.Sjö (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I've found enough sources to secure my belief that bibliophobia as the fear or dislike of books is a notable topic, but as a disposition or attitude (i.e. a neologism that satisfies WP:GNG) rather than a mental illness as given by this present article. This looks like a case of WP:BLOWITUP, but can I ask those !voting delete if you would have any prejudice against its recreation assuming reliable sourcing and different focus? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLOWITUP is not policy because it is contrary to the incremental wiki method detailed in our actual editing policy. Instead, we are encouraged to be bold in our editing and so I have updated the page in question. Page deletion was neither needed nor appropriate. Andrew (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the direction in which you've taken the article. Editors who have !voted "delete" should consider whether their opinion is changed by the rewrite.--Srleffler (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was unreliably sourced until Andrew Davidson rewrite it. Now the article is reliably and scholarly sourced and establishing notability. Planet Star 23:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG and NEO with current version --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article must be treated in a different manner and not like most improbable phobias that we have been dealing with in the Project Medicine: here the word phobia is used metaphorically in the sense of aversion. References adequately prove its notability. NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the change it's a new and much better article. Sjö (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has withdrawn nomination. --Auric talk 14:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The AfD can't be closed based on the withdrawal since there are outstanding delete arguments/!votes, but at this point a snow close could be in order.. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 24 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. Textbook example of no consensus. The article seems to have been updated since the start, although I can't say if that is for the better. Dennis - 2¢ 22:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Howley[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. The current version of the article contains only two non-primary references, but the one is just one sentence-namechecking: "As a New York city resident, I took particular interest in Patrick Howley’s story on Indian Point, which is the kind of story I’d like to see more of.)" and the other is a brief note in one of those blogs with more ads than words. The most in-depth discussion of the man and his work is found on the opposite of the spectrum, like this and this, which are all about some...eh...tweets that the subject made a while ago. These things aren't found in our article. Maybe this interview counts for something, but I do not see how the subject passes the GNG, and a bit of yelling back and forth on the blogs on either side don't really add up to significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. In my opinion. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as shown in the nomination for deletion, the subject of this AfD has been the subject of non-primary significant coverage, including this event, and subject to such ridicule pieces as this and this. Although not flattering, they are significant coverage of the subject of the coverage. Therefore the subject appears to pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:20, 8 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a generally non-notable journalist. As the previous comments have shown, there is some coverage of Patrick Howley. However, most of the coverage consists of opinion pieces, in effect saying "this guy stinks". I don't think of this as coverage by newspapers/magazines/whatever with a reputation for fact checking. Unless more factual articles can be found, the article should be deleted. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two of teh sources I provided were to a news blog of the Washington Post, and to The Week, both of which are reliable sources. This should be sufficient to pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sufficient notability established. Quis separabit? 00:27, 16 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 21:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am the subject, and this page was designed specifically by political critics who wanted to post defamatory hit pieces about me. This should not be the point of Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia should not be cyber-harassment by specific individuals. Thank you -PH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.5.213 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe you are Patrick Howley. But if you are -- what exactly in the page is "defamatory"?? Quis separabit? 22:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per NorthAmerica Passes WP:BASIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:27, 24 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. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Operators (band)[edit]

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

No notability indicated in article, or found in my search as per WP:BEFORE. Two of the external links (the NME and 'An Interview with the band' don't work. No references in article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 05:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found decent coverage from The Guardian ([42]) and The Evening Standard ([43]). --Michig (talk) 06:28, 11 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 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep per the sources from Michig. That is actually pretty solid coverage, even if there is a shortage of anything else. Dennis - 2¢ 22:27, 26 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophophobia[edit]

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

The topic of the article is a neologism, based solely on non-reliable websites. As noted at List of phobias, there are many unreliable lists of phobias that can be found online. Wikipedia's policies require that there be reliable sources that discuss a named phobia, before we create an article on it. Srleffler (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per the same arguments I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chionophobia.Sjö (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chionophobia. A Google Scholar search for sophophobia gives some clues as to where such terms come from: books for weird words and low quality self-help books. NikosGouliaros (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually nothing on Google scholar. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 04:54, 21 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darlic[edit]

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

Non-notable web application framework. No reliable sources were offered, and I can’t find any. —teb728 t c 21:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see anything out there that would begin to suggest that this can satisfy the general notability guideline. --VeryCrocker (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this framework.Dialectric (talk) 06:59, 19 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Cross[edit]

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

unsourced non-notable band spam. tag indicating sources needed since 2009 --nominating for deletion in 2014. PRODed in the past, orig author deleted the PROD with no major improvements. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:35, 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 14:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence of notability. Note: not to be confused with Christian metal band Whitecross. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:51, 9 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 21:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable source for this article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:28, 25 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. Seems clear enough. Dennis - 2¢ 22:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Suffolk[edit]

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

This isn't the "Flag of Suffolk". This is one man's rejected proposal for a flag. (I assume the author of this article is the one man in question, as the uploader of the image claims to be the copyright holder.) Even if the references weren't a pair of dead links, this would be a non-notable proposal, not a legitimate flag. (FWIW, Suffolk County Council and the Department for Communities and Local Government appear to think the flag of Suffolk is a completely different design. There's a possibility someone could write a legitimate article about the genuine flag, but it would have nothing in common with this article other than the title.) Mogism (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is why WP:N requires independent notice to be paid. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Andy Dingley, I can find no in depth coverage of this proposal, let alone independent in depth coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know what to add, nothing worth adding. Szzuk (talk) 18:19, 25 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 List of social activities at Durham University#Durham Union Society. Dennis - 2¢ 22:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Durham Union Society[edit]

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

As per deletion of Durham Union Society Bogger (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bogger (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The society may not notable in itself, but the entire Union is and the society is a relevant part of it for that article, similar to the Manchester Debating Union on the University of Manchester Students' Union page. Bogger (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to selective Merge as below Bogger (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is three-fold. Firstly, the page would continue in existence that would perpetuate the copyright infringement from the cut'n'paste creation. The second is that there has already been a very substantial merge from the article's previous reincarnation. Any additional content would be undue weight in the context of the target article. Finally, the new content is not independently sourced so nothing more is mergeable. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Selective merge~~ to List of social activities at Durham University – Durham Union Society, which covers the topic extensively. Source searches are not providing enough significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify a standalone article per the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. This book source appears to be promising, but additional book and news searches are only providing short and passing mentions (e.g. [44], [45], [46], [47]). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of social activities at Durham University#Durham Union Society. Does not meet WP:GNG so not separately notable. What has happened is that following the merge pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham Union Society this article has been created as a copy and paste from the original article causing attribution issues (hence delete first). Clearly, there is no need for a merge because the merge was previously carried out. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of social activities at Durham University – Durham Union Society per User:The Whispering Wind. I have struck my previous !vote above. Upon reviewing the Revision history, the article appears to have been recreated from a copy/paste from an offline saved version of the article. As this appears to be the case, proper attribution for the origin of the content is not present. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 18 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 21:19, 18 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. All schools get casual or local mentions, which is why we use WP:SIGCOV as a measuring stick for anything short of a High School, thus we have a consensus to delete. Dennis - 2¢ 22:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shemford[edit]

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

Chain of preschools. I see no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I must be missing something. I thought that Indian Senior Secondary Schools were for 11th and 12th grades. The main page of the company web site has a line "Futuristic K-12 Schools" at the top of the page. However, when I go to the web site's admission details page ([48]), all I see are ages up through five and one half. What gives? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much in a regular Google search, but lots of hits in ProQuest and LexisNexis:

"Schools of thought." JAGRAN Cityplus. (July 26, 2013 ): 738 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/10/15.

"Shemrock & Shemford Group of Schools to expand." New Indian Express. (May 28, 2012 Monday ): 297 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/10/15.

"'We ensure that there is a balance between guidance and freedom'." New Indian Express. (May 20, 2013 Monday ): 628 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/10/15.

"Shemrock & Shemford Group to Open 15 New Schools in Tamil Nadu." Digital Learning, 06. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1018061495.

"Shemford Group Enters Limca Book of Records 2013." 2013. Digital Learning, 04. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1347365542.

"Shemrock kids turn high flyers." The Times of India (TOI). (January 30, 2012 Monday ): 192 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/10/15.

A lot of it's also short blurbs about things their students are doing (and some are a little press release-y), but ultimately there is enough content (in some form) for the Shemrock schools and the Shemford parent company. czar ♔ 15:33, 15 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 21:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom, and borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on my above comment it still appears that Shemford is only operating a primary school, and not a full range of grades. My understanding of consensus on schools is that primary schools are not notable, barring something very special; I don't see evidence of that. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone mistaking Wikipedia for a trade directory, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why the sources I dug up were not recognized? I took the liberty to add a few to the article, and it should be more than sufficient now. There are plenty more to choose from. I'd also recommend expanding the article scope to include "Shemrock" preschools after the AfD closes, since there is so much overlap in coverage. @Deb, Traveling Man, Kudpung, and DGG? czar ♔ 16:31, 26 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moroni and the Swastika: Mormons in Nazi Germany[edit]

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

This article is purported to be about a book not yet published. The content looks like a possible religious attack and perhaps should be speedy deleted. I am One of Many (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would be more inclined to delete it as speedy promotional if it were nearer to being published. The alternative of redirecting to the author's article does not apply, because this is his first book & there's no other basis for notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ DGG I agree with you that it is entirely promotional with no indication that it will be notable. I'm particularly worried that such claims such as the one below about members of a church with no sources in the article amount to WP:BLPGROUP and you would be justified doing a speedy delete on that basis.I am One of Many (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to 42 small German religious sects that were shut down by the Nazi government, and to Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses that were actively persecuted, Nelson writes that "almost fourteen thousand Mormons worshiped without undue hindrance". Nelson attributes this at least partially to the values shared between the LDS Church and Nazi's, such as an "interest in genealogy, sports and large families" and to Mormon willingness to serve in Wehrmacht and the Hitler Youth.

this does not fall within the scope of BLP--please re-read BLPGROUP;. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did and both large and small groups can be close to BLPs issues, though smaller groups are closer. In any case, it is a judgement call and there are no sources to back up the claim. I am One of Many (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 19 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 ♔ 07:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Know Why (CNBLUE song)[edit]

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

A unotable single that could be redirected to the music group IMO Wgolf (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:00, 9 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 21:10, 18 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 ♔ 07:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masta Blasta (The Rebirth)[edit]

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

A song that has not a lot of info on-I would say redirect to the singer, but the only thing that directs here is the singer! Wgolf (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:01, 9 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 21:10, 18 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. Dennis - 2¢ 22:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aiza Khan[edit]

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

The subject does not passes WP:Notability (people) as subject has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Cited single source does not establish notability, there should be significant coverage of the subject. Justice007 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 9 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 21:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, yet. Newspapers and other reliable sources show much coverage on the person. It can be recreated when some one has WP:RS for the topic. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 23 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. Dennis - 2¢ 21:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Homo Handbook[edit]

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

Article should be ~~merged with Judy Carter,~~ as there are no reliable secondary sources indicating significance. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I apologize, my intention was not suggest WP:MERGEing the articles, it was to delete it and replace it with a redirect. There are good reasons not to use AFD for merging, which is why that was a mistake. At this point it's clear that the book should be mentioned at the Judy Carter article, but I'm still uncertain if it's noteworthy enough for its own article. Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a notable literary award, such as the Lambda Literary Awards, should in principle be enough notability for a book to qualify for a standalone article, though of course it's really all about the presence or absence of reliable source coverage. I've added a couple of sources that I pulled from the news databases available to me (Highbeam, GALE Gender Studies Collection and Proquest Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies), but I'm still not entirely convinced that the volume of sourcing here is quite enough — although there might admittedly be other sourcing available in databases I don't have access to. Weak keep, though I wouldn't object to the proposed merger either. Merge per nom, though I'm willing to reconsider that if somebody with access to different databases can beef up the sourcing a bit more than I've been able to (and no prejudice against future recreation if the sourcing can be located at a later date.) Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have added a primary source for the Lambda Literary Award. This is an award with a fairly large number of categories, (twenty, for the 9th Lambda Literary Awards), and this is easily mentioned in the author's article, so I'm not sure if this is enough to meet WP:BKCRIT or not. The award certainly belongs on the author's page. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should not be deleted, a) it is a published work, not self published b) Judy won an award because of the book c) the book was involved in a controversy and specifically named d) they are third party sources that discuss the book. I have added one and in process of adding others 204.102.74.5 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional citation refering to the controversy.

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive this article meets the criteria for notability. The homo handbook has won an award, it was involved in a controversy, and has multiple articles written about it. This means it fullfills both criteria 1 and 2 of WP:BKCRIT.

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those articles are about either banned/challenged books in general, or a specific incident with a local library. Regarding the controversy, while it should certainly be mentioned if the article is kept, the sources are brief mentions of the book in listings of other banned books. The book was one of 55-70 books (sources don't agree) that were petitioned to be banned. That's not exactly standing out from a crowd. This kind of source isn't really that great for establishing notability in my opinion. They confirm that the book was challenged (not actually banned, from what I can tell), but that's not in question. This is similar to a description of the book on a bookseller's website. That's not really useful. Nobody is denying that the book exists. Again, this is something that seems like it could easily be mentioned in a sentence or two on Carter's page. Grayfell (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good source coverage. Recipient of Lambda Literary Award. — Cirt (talk) 01:20, 12 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 21:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge selectively to Judy Carter - Not seeing reliable sources, and @cirt, the Lambda Literary Award is not a "major literary award" such that it grants passage of WP:NBOOKS. Where are the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhododendrites (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Dennis - 2¢ 21:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cathisophobia[edit]

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

The topic of the article is a neologism, based solely on a non-reliable website. As noted at List of phobias, there are many unreliable lists of phobias that can be found online. Wikipedia's policies require that there be reliable sources that discuss a named phobia, before we create an article on it. Srleffler (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into akathisia. Andrew (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per the same arguments I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chionophobia. Akathisia doesn't seem to be a specific phobia, from what I can make out from the article, but I confess that I've never heard of it before. Sjö (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of all the results in Google Scholar, only a couple are scholarly articles, and they seem to use cathisophobia as a synonym of acathisia. However, it is too rare a word to even merit a disambiguation page. NikosGouliaros (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually no Google Scholar hits. Seems popular on blogs and other unreliable sources, but that's not much help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the mainstream medical term, not a common usage, not a source in sight of substantive coverage with a shred of reliability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:19, 22 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) 00:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Young[edit]

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

Can't put a prod on it since there techincally are refs. But I'm not sure if he is as notable as he says he is and sounds like it might be a auto bio. also keeps on making alternate spellings of the name (see Kid Youny and Kid Wong) Now something does seem off about this page Wgolf (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I do think this is possibly a hoax or something. And good luck on actually finding this name on Google considering the number of hits you will get. Wgolf (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~. as not notable. I had a look at the Chinese page but that's now located at /temp (the equivalent of Draft: here ?) and looks like it's been deleted from mainspace for similar reasons. If evidence of notability can't be found by the Chinese WP I doubt we'll find any here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:29, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Chinese article seems to be in mainspace now. I put his name in Chinese through the Google News check and it seems legit (see here). First is a report on sina.com of him as the male lead in a new film (see here). In the film "Diving High" he's apparently one of the major characters. Seems notable. Perhaps the name changes are due to Google's inability to get his name correct? I see him mostly translated as "Kodak". - Takeaway (talk) 01:06, 18 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 20:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is Chinese star Kid Young（Wang Ke Da）Chinese Wikipedia(see here).Htyounnnnng (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. The Chinese article seems much improved and is now in mainspace. I'm unable to evaluate the references myself so am not that confident of its notability but can no longer support deletion so am changing my !vote. I don't know if the name is the best one; it's unclear if this English name is widely used, and it might be better to use his Chinese name appropriately Romanised, e.g. Wang Keda. But this can be addressed after this discussion is closed (assuming it's kept).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:41, 25 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. I hate no consensus closings, but this is a prime example of where the community is split. After screwing up with a delete (darn buttons), now closing as no consensus. Dennis - 2¢ 21:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Romania[edit]

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

sub "brand" of airline company that only lasted from May to August 2014. Fails WP:CORP Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Plenty of news coverage about this company, esp. as it lasted for such a short amount of time. How long should a company exist before it's notable? May to September? April to November? Can you point me to the policy that states this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts WP:ORGDEPTH invalidates most of the refs used. There is only one article that seems to be in depth coverage. The length of time the company existed is not important, but it is why there are not many sources talking about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG; numerous independent and reliable sources. I disagree with @Gaijin42; at least the Diplomat and Romania Libera sources are in-depth - the ch-aviation ones could go either way. Certainly neither the Diplomat or Romania Libera are phone books, schedules, passing notions - they're not (based on) routine communiqués or announcement either. Ie. there is actual journalistic work in the sources ie. it's in-depth coverage. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A paragraph in Ten Airways would be sufficient. A newspaper article does not notability make!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it lasted such a short length of time, to me, suggests exactly why it should remain; not only is it well covered, but it seems notable due to only lasting such a short amount of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.181.58 (talk) 22:26, 8 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 20:22, 18 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kincannon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Unclear notability, seemingly a WP:1E person via his 3 month GOP position. The article has since become a WP:COATRACK for his bizarre and outrageous statements and/or political positions.~~Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw nomination based on the original AfD and comments here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly per the excellent arguments to keep made in the unsuccesful May, 2014 attempt to delete this biography. This person's notability does not derive only from his brief GOP position, but from his expertise in voting law which has been widely accepted by Southern U.S. courts, and by his widely-reported propensity for making outrageous public statements, such as his recent calls for summary execution of all Ebola patients. This man is notable, and NPOV coverage of his ideas is no coatrack - it is an essential part of the biography of a political figure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last May I wrote on the Talk page of this article: "This article was nominated for deletion in May 2014. The consensus was to keep the article. If you would like to delete this article, please review why editors decided to keep it in 2014 before nominating it again." I just went back and re-read the May 2004 reasons for keeping this article and they still seem compelling to me. For that reason, and because I think we should respect the wishes of editors who came before us, I vote to keep. Chisme (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's at least as notable as Alvin Greene, for similar reasons: yes, local politics, but national facepalming. Kincannon has repeatedly made statements that have drawn national ire. Once or twice would be an issue, but this guy pretty much has a career in saying horrible things. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments made at the last AfD. James500 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD can now be closed as "speedy keep" per criteria 1 of WP:SK. James500 (talk) 04:34, 20 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. Dennis - 2¢ 21:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Educate My Girl[edit]

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

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

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

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

This article reads like an advertisement and previously had a section asking readers to donate to the organization. It also has no sources other than the organization's website and social media. The user who created it has previously been bocked for creating inappropriate articles. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 18:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Well, I am voting with my heart rather than my brain. It is a 9th grade girl that has started this organisation and she seems to have basically created this wiki page by herself. A lot of energy and enthusiasm. So, can't we overlook all the rules for once and let it be? It doesn't hurt. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The rules are the rules. We can't allow blatant advertisements disguised as articles. Making exceptions based on emotion damages the integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 00:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is a kid! Give her a break. We can't expect her to understand all our rules perfectly. (I myself don't understand them all.) I think we should nurture her interest and rather than to shoot her down. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't some minor policy technicality. This is an attempt to use Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. In addition, the user has been found to be sockpuppeting, so there isn't much "nurturing" to do here. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 03:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HARMLESS. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no indication of notability supported by significant coverage in reliable sources. Also highly promotional. The "keep" !vote above does not take into account Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Source searches are providing almost no coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. All I could find was a passing mention here. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse !votes by confirmed sockpuppets.
Keep. Source from The Independant Times, a Santa Barbara Newspaper which is read by 20 -25,000 people is there. What more do we need? I think the error that the girl had made earlier has been corrected. Please Look Forward to it too! --Hoodygirl ^Hoodygirl/ 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] — Hoodygirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. "What more do we need?" More than one passing mention in one source. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] Keep. I think we should promote children and not demoralize them and she has also given source from a newspaper : The Independant Times --Dev Mukherjee ^Devmukherjee/ 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] — devmukherjee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep. I don't find a big flaw or a kind of advertisement in this article. I don't know why the wikipedians are proposing to delete it. --JimmyBroughton (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] — JimmyBroughton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep. This article is not an advertisement from any angle and it also doesn't have a donation link or something in it. --DeePowell123 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] — DeePowell123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep. Nandini Goel, a child prodigy at computers, has begun a small-scale, grassroots project in Delhi, India — a computer school for girls from impoverished families. Nandini volunteers all her spare time to meditation and to instructing girls less fortunate then her. See Educate My Girl here. This is what was written about educate my girl. what else source is needed rather than from such a renowned newspaper --WikiLover34 ^WikiLover34/ 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] — WikiLover34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Collapse !votes by confirmed sockpuppets.

Keep. Source from The Independant Times, a Santa Barbara Newspaper which is read by 20 -25,000 people is there. What more do we need? I think the error that the girl had made earlier has been corrected. Please Look Forward to it too! --Hoodygirl ^Hoodygirl/ 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Hoodygirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"What more do we need?" More than one passing mention in one source. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we should promote children and not demoralize them and she has also given source from a newspaper : The Independant Times --Dev Mukherjee ^Devmukherjee/ 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— devmukherjee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I don't find a big flaw or a kind of advertisement in this article. I don't know why the wikipedians are proposing to delete it. --JimmyBroughton (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— JimmyBroughton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This article is not an advertisement from any angle and it also doesn't have a donation link or something in it. --DeePowell123 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— DeePowell123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Nandini Goel, a child prodigy at computers, has begun a small-scale, grassroots project in Delhi, India — a computer school for girls from impoverished families. Nandini volunteers all her spare time to meditation and to instructing girls less fortunate then her. See Educate My Girl here. This is what was written about educate my girl. what else source is needed rather than from such a renowned newspaper --WikiLover34 ^WikiLover34/ 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— WikiLover34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete rather unfortunately, because of lack of coverage. I attempted to find sources myself, and failed to find any. However, I agree with Kautilya that the enthusiasm of this editor should not be stomped upon; throw a mentor at them, if somebody is willing. Kautilya3, you'd be a decent candidate yourself. This was before I saw the evidence of socking. Not much to be done there, now. Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH.Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 19 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hussan Saad[edit]

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

Actor with just a few roles so far which falls under the too soon criteria. Wgolf (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with nom. Delete per WP:TOOSOON. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - simple A7 case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:17, 22 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 as failing WP:NSPORTS and also WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davie[edit]

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

Fails GNG, not notable on either the football or baseball sides. Wizardman 17:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing of note. Alex (talk) 15:29, 21 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. Dennis - 2¢ 21:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Óscar Zepeda[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article may meet WP:GNG based on the sources cited in it. However, these are routine sports journalism, insufficient for general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:12, 19 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) 12:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:02, 25 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. Dennis - 2¢ 21:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Sagoe[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally based on the mistaken impression that the use BLPPROD on an article precluded the use of the regular PROD. This does not affect the delete rationale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. SmileBlueJay97 talk 00:58, 23 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) 12:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:02, 25 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) 00:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Malleable Iron Company[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation, per WP:CORP and WP:ORGSIG. Online reference is fleeting and simply an example of the industry of Oshawa, not as significant in its own right. LS1979 (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a direct feed from Knob Hill Farms. As facility in which Knob Hill Oshawa moved into, it has historical significance. Further, this site, in addition to others was a reason why Oshawa was at one time considered the "Manchester of Canada". Again, significant historical significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMTEgirl (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article isn't even a day old and is undergoing rapid development. Already appears to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I can see why the nominator made this proposal. The only significant article I could find was this one. Still, the scattering of small mentions about this company seems to indicate that it was at one time an important company, which employed a lot of people, and shaped the economic growth of Oshawa. With a lot of digging a decent article might be constructed. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:58, 19 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. While not ignoring any vote, there is a difference between a passing mention and significant covers, with that being a deciding factor. Dennis - 2¢ 21:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Palestine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Article on a non-noteworthy student group, thereby not meeting WP standard on notability. The article gives the group the false appearance of being an established political organisation, which it is not. Undue weight is given to its hardly-newsworthy student activism. Additionally, the multiple issues on such an article of questionable significance gives cause for the article to be SALTED or just plain junked. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Content issues are not AfD delete reasons. What issues are there that pertain to an AfD? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've clarified my position above.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I.am.a.qwerty, since you are the AfD nominator, you don't get a separate vote to delete. As the proposer, your position is already assumed to be for the deletion. You should just put those delete reasons under the find sources tag, deleting the delete word. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at the last AFD, it seems the delete votes and arguments were simply ignored as the reason for admin's keep was "no concensus" although the vote for keep was outnumbered 3 to 1. I don't see how this article could possibly meet WP standards or why it took so long for a second AFD tag. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep There is no doubt that the organization exists, and has existed for some considerable time. It has had enough coverage in neutral mainstream sources to indicate it is notable enough for an article. For example, here is a recent Guardian article [49], here it is mentioned in national media in Australia [50], and here in regional media in Australia [51]. It has also been mentioned in mainstream sources in ways that some might claim to be institutionally-biased (like [52]), as well as on activists' sites, also in masses of openly pro-Israel media (this last indicating this organization's importance is not just self-perceived importance). Anything else is just a content issue, not a reason to delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the group is a small student society, not an established organisation of any kind. Hence, the notibility issue... Additionally, the articles you've listed make but passing references to the group within the context of student political protests. That kind of coverage might work to cite their activities but not their notibility. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a long-established organization - it existed in 2009 when the last AfD happened, and it still exists. It is not a "small student society" - it exists as branches in numerous campuses, as the news sources often indicate. I don't know if there is an easy way to get a complete list, but after you ref tagged the active campuses section of the article, I had a look at [53]. Alas, to get the info (where it exists) you have to laboriously go through each university, then each campus, then each list of non-sporting clubs (and often there is no list given, for example, [54]). However, for example, for Monash University, Clayton campus, we find there is a Students for Palestine club [55]. Same for RMIT University, city campus, [56], and Macquarie University [57]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Curiosity provoked, I spent a lot of time last evening attempting to find references to make this into an article. I think well-documented articles on minor outfits are really useful. It is convenient to be able to go to Wikipedia to sort out the constantly shifting kaleidescope of activist factionalizing as it spins out an endless string of new clubs. I didn't vote delete last night because, in general, I prefer giving articles the chance to grow to deleting. On second thought, however, when it comes to small organizations and obscure assertions, Wikipedia is a way of establishing credibility. And Wikipedia needs to protect its own credibility by making sure that article topics can be established by reliable sources (even if the creator hasn't googled them up and added them to the article. In this case, I searched, and came up empty. On the other hand, it took about a minute this morning to find a source and take the notability tag off 2010 Hakkâri bus attack. (The other article I spent a long time trying to source last night was Anti-Muslim bombings in Paris, Cannes and Nice, and I'm still not sure what to do with it.) The article under discussion here is about an organization that has had little to no coverage in reliable sources. I suggest that the creator begin by finding enough solid sources to write a section about this outfit on an established page about student activism. Because at this stage, the sources are simply not out there.ShulMaven (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The group doesn't seem to be notable. Most of these sources can't support notability, some of the reliable sources are just cited to back up facts about Palestine rather than mentioning the group, and the few sources that are both reliable and about the group seem fairly newsy/routine. It's possible that this could just be redirected to Socialist Alternative, though! (not that that article doesn't need a trim...) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I wouldn't mind if there was an appropriate redirect target but I'm not sure Socialist Alternative is it). There really isn't significant coverage of the organisation itself, enough to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. It's all minor passing mentions and "Students for Palestine also..." sort of stuff. That doesn't make for a strong encyclopaedic article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Socialist_Alternative_(Australia)#Palestine seems fine for a redirect. Although I'd want to double check the source that SA is the backing/founding group for SFP. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:45, 25 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) Natg 19 (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Cuny[edit]

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

Only source in the article is an obituary. The person is not present even in French Wikipedia. I looked for sources but could not find something considerable. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Using the French Google, I find that a major network of French gerontological institutes is named after him [58]. This provides independent verification of the importance of his career. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. The lack of an article on another wiki is a very poor measuring stick to use, as the English version has more editors than the rest combined. Dennis - 2¢ 17:27, 26 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. Dennis - 2¢ 17:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Klaypex[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Insignificant coverage; self-published sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Magnolia677, YourEDM isn't considered significant? Is there a list of notable versus not notable online EDM publications floating around out there, or is it all pretty much subjective? Earflaps (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - per #2 of wp:musicbio : "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." (I don't vote on pages I write myself, but I can't take any credit on this one - I just reworded and posted what other editors had worked on for a year in the incubator) Earflaps (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MOSBIO No. 2. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 25 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sawyer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notable for only one thing; part of a non-encyclopedic proliferation of articles on people who were infected with or died of Ebola. Previous deletion discussion had only a few participants and should not have been closed) Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep: The subject is well covered in reliable sources, and he's covered beyond just being an "index case of ebola". there are publications on his background, family....and he's also an official for the Liberian Government. Then again, there are publications on how he evaded Quarantine, there are also reports that he urinated on health workers upon been told he had Ebola etc. So the subject is not just notable for bringing ebola, but more on the circumstance with which he brought the virus. WP:SINGLEEVENT states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate".--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing in the article about him urinating on anyone. and ebola has not blown up into an outbreak in Nigeria. He did not play a large role in anything large. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says "significant event" not "large event"....and first case of ebola in Nigeria was very significant, as it was well covered in the media and the role of Sawyer in the epidemic was large. And I was generally talking about what has been covered about him,1 2 not what is in the article....the article is obviously still starting and will eventually be expanded.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant, sustained secondary source coverage of this deceased person from reliable sources and verifiable references from all over the globe that continues to increase in depth and breadth and scope of coverage. — Cirt (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete as~~ COMMENT from nominator adding reasoning for nomination. Patrick Sawyer is notable for one thing, and one thing only, transmitting Ebola to Nigeria, which did not turn into an outbreak. The many sources about him are mostly gossip that have nothing to do with actual notability (e.g. details of life, wife, job, etc are all trivia and are not of encyclopedic interest). Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tabloid or gossip rag. He is not notable except for that one thing and his role in the 2014 Outbreak is discussed in that article (here), and that is appropriate. There is no justification to make a WP:SPLIT of the Ebola article and have a separate article on him. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC) (amended per discussion below Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You can only vote once; you've already done that with your nomination.....give all your rationales in your nomination post.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

removed strike. i would be happy to strike and move my comment up into the nomination myself, but please point me to the place in the instructions where there is support for the position you are taking and i will gladly do that. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISCUSSAFD - "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line......Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line". please do get yourself familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, and strike off the edit immediately (STRIKE OFF...do not delete the edit, so as not the disrupt the discussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Tubers (talk • contribs)

for fuck's sake - I asked you about this point of the discussion process; you don't need to jam that down my throat. that said, thank you for pointing out the instruction. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ameyo Adadevoh, then rename to Notable Nigerian fatalities of the 2014 Ebola outbreak. Keep only if there's something unique about each of the patients in relation to Ebola. -Mardus (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable for being the index case in Nigeria leading to an outbreak in that country resulting in 8 confirmed deaths and is significant and notable as evidenced by sustained and consistent secondary source coverage. He is also notable because although he was under quarantine and surveillance by the Liberian health authorities and although he knew he was most probably infected with ebola virus he still managed to board international flights to Togo and Nigeria leading to the spread of the virus across international borders. Ochiwar (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (do not merge). Obviously notable as a Patient Zero with a less-than-ethical (i.e., interesting) back-story.--Froglich (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with text from Ameyo Adadevoh and information already in the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article to create a new country-specific detail article Ebola virus epidemic in Nigeria (which is currently just a redirect), that can be linked as a "main article" from Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Nigeria -- Impsswoon (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (do not merge). The subject is notable as Patient Zero for the disease in Nigeria and his family's situation dealing with America's Social Security bureaucracy is potentially enlightening. It is better to err on the side of keeping too much information than to omit useful knowledge from Wikipedia. AmboyBeacon (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (do not merge). Notable in that virus spread from Liberia to Nigeria through the subject and linked to outbreak in Nigeria as Patient Zero. Also, I found out about the outbreak in Nigeria through searching subject's name, so there's at least anecdotal evidence for notability. Original nominator's concerns can be addressed through continued checking of secondary sources. Swilk (talk) 16:32, 25 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. I am closng it a few hours too early, but it arguably passes WP:SNOW.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Haiti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An incredibly researched article which chronicles what ultimately sums up to be 25 members of a congregation in a country of 10 million or so. Clearly WP:UNDUE. The events and interaction of the congregation are not particularly notable. Jewish count not included in CIA factbook, and for good reason. WP:TRIVIA. If all congregations of 25 or more were counted in Haiti, there could be 10 thousand articles on each one. Multiplication of nn organizations is not desirable. So I don't get accused of anti-Semitism, articles on Judaism in Miami, New York, Israel (!), and many other places are highly desirable. I once worked on History of the Jews in Thessaloniki. Note that the latter consists of more than 25 members! In the meantime, I am trying to get rid of information about another tiny group which is, however, larger than this one! Student7 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sure, the article has some issues (neutrality in particular), but I think those issues can be settled by adding a few maintenance tags. Otherwise, the article is properly referenced, and the topic itself is fine. We have many articles titled something like "History of the Jews in (country)", so we can't say that the history of the Jews in a specific country isn't notable. Thus, I feel like this article really doesn't deserve deletion. (It's also worthy to note that there was a previous AfD on this article earlier this year, which essentially resulted in a snow keep.) --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your deletion rationale is essentially unchanged from the one you posted the first time around, albeit with more words. Can you explained what in this topic area you feel has changed in the interim 8 months following that discussion that closed as a unanimous keep? Tarc (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A group of even 25 people who have had a presence in a certain locality for over 500 years is very notable, especially if they also belong to a word religion and to a people with rich cultural traditions. Student7, your argument is not logical for an encyclopedia and is more likely to do harm than good. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm a bit worried about the sources since this one seems to predominate [59] and I doubt it is acceptable. Would be better to go for the actual sources this source cites. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources demonstrate the notability of an article about the centuries-long presence in the nation, and that's what matters. The nominator seems to obsess on the insubstantial size of the 2013 Jewish population in Haiti, which is just part of a history that dates back to the voyages of Columbus. The fact that the nominator is making a second nomination using the same excuse that was rebutted in the first comes of as a staggering abuse of process. I'd suggest closing this AfD immediately and recommend a walloping trout-slap for User:Student7. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:N. Source examples include:

The Jewish Nation of the Caribbean. pp. 288-297
Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West, 1400-1800. pp. 304-308
Rara!: Vodou, Power, and Performance in Haiti and Its Diaspora, Volume 1. pp. 131-133
Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 9. pp. 239-240
The Jerusalem Post
The Washington Post (subscription required)
The Jewish Daily Forward
Jewish Telegraphic Agency

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nominator himself admits that this article has sufficient WP:V & WP:RS that makes it WP:N. The logic behind this nomination is also very faulty since this is not just about "25 or so live Jews on Haiti" now but about a much longer older history, see History of the Jews in Haiti#History and modern history History of the Jews in Haiti#Modern Times. Note, just because "dinosaurs" have been extinct for billions of years, does not mean we should delete encyclopedic articles about "extinct species" while in this case there are at least still 25+ living Jews in Haiti. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:36, 20 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. Wizardman 22:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Barnes (manager)[edit]

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

Not seeing notability here. Managed in the minor leagues for a few years, fails GNG. Wizardman 15:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anyone out there wants to add "awesome 19th century mustache" to WP:NSPORTS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Recanting my delete, just gonna not vote. I didn't fully take into account the issues of sources in the 19th century, few of which are easily obtained. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are people voting delete because of a lack of sources or because sources for the claims in the article still wouldn't pass GNG? If this guy did, indeed, organize a couple of early professional baseball leagues and manage in the minors for about a decade, it's almost impossible to believe sourcing wouldn't exist that would get him over the GNG hump. Those sources simply wouldn't be easily found via the internet. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm leaning towards agreeing with Bbny-wiki-editor's argument. Alex (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm inclined to say keep because this guy seems to have been somewhat accomplished... his involvement with the original Western League particularly... but I'm a bit concerned by the articles similarities to [60]. It seems to be a copyvio of the text from his tombstone. Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an example of why we really need to differentiate minor league inclusion criteria between today's development leagues and early professional baseball, where minor leagues had much more regional importance and were not merely development leagues, and being well prior to the internet, sources that existed are far more difficult to find. In any case, for this subject there is some coverage of his importance at least here, here and here (the section "Spokane in the Laegue"). Possibly here too], based on the Google search snippet, although it is behind a pay wall. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 19 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Box Boys[edit]

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

Minor band, whose only claim to faim is having been forced by Microsoft to change their name. Neither the cited sources, not anything I could find online are enough to make this pass either WP:NMUSIC or WP:EVENT (for the legal troubles). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Yahoo interview link is broken, I also couldn't find the KING 5 interview either. All the other references are either their own website or press releases. Fails WP:V and being forced to change their name by Microsoft, in it of itself, does not change that this is otherwise a non-notable band. Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I almost deleted as it was up for a week, but I hate to do that with just one vote, so I did some digging instead. What I found was a lack of sources available. Faced with such, delete is the only reasonable reply. Dennis - 2¢ 17:07, 26 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. Sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudcade[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Article is based solely on a publicity event held by the company's founders. The company is "planning to create games" but has not yet released any product. Note WP:COI author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm torn on this one. The nomination sounds good, but there's already at least 3 reliable sources that dedicate whole articles to the subject... Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the third party reliable sources covering the topic in detail? Sergecross73 msg me 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Any spam/COI/promotional tones are unfortunate...but reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Regardless of the shoddy state its currently in, it does meet the WP:GNG through significant coverage in third party reliable sources.

The game is receiving coverage in both video game and economics-related sources, which honestly, is a lot broader than many notable topics in the video game world. Sergecross73 msg me 22:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the coverage appears to be based on the single fact that this company managed to raise $1.55M in the venture capital market. And that coverage all seems to stem from a single press conference that the company had to announce that fact. Perhaps the gaming industry is starved for any useful news these days, but a company isn't notable for merely raising money, it is notable for producing notable products, which this one has not yet done. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how/why, each of the sources are definitely third party and discussing the subject in significant detail. I've provided six sources that have a consensus for being reliable, and there's more out there. There's easily enough content for a good stub here. Spin it however you like, it certainly meets the bare minimum of what is defined by the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON to determine whether this startup is going to prove notable. Is the threshold of notability that a company got press for receiving seed money? With respect to User:Sergecross73's industry finding sources, they represent, at least IMHO, routine gaming business news. Lots of start-ups get seed money, and most of them don't pan out. This is normal in business. Thousands of these articles are published every day, just like sports scores. Since notability is not temporary, this narrow discussion has no way of determining notability before the company gets a single customer interaction. BusterD (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are sources, but they're routine stuff, barely better than directory entries. I don't think it amounts to substantial coverage, as required by the GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure why this fact hasn't been mentioned here, but the page creator was blocked just minutes after creating this entirely promotional page because the account name was a blatant violation of WP:CORPNAME. BusterD (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It hasn't been mentioned because it's largely irrelevant. Whether or not the creator had good or ill intentions in creating this page, we should be deciding whether the subject merits an article, not whether the current article is valid. If the subject merits coverage, then we can improve the article. But if, as I argue, they do not merit coverage, then there is no point in improving the article. But the article stand or falls on the notability of the company, not on the intentions of the author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I can't argue with what User:WikiDan61 said; the comments are certainly within pillars, policy, and guideline. I've made my comment on the merits above. However, under only slightly different circumstances, somebody might have G11ed this page and we wouldn't be having this very civil discussion about the contributions of a blocked user. We do delete pages summarily for being purely promotional. There's something about suicide pact here which deserves a better forum than this narrow process. BusterD (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment True, but I didn't find this page that exceptionally promotional. Opinions vary, I suppose. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. IMHO, the company nakedly used Wikipedia in order to raise its corporate profile days after a press conference announcing major capital infusion. That's the very definition of promotional. This strategy, if successfully used, makes Wikipedia just another tool in an investment manager's playbook. I have issues with that, thus my comment about the page creator. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I see your point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment - The fact that this had to be re-listed at AFD is probably a sign that it's not quite as clear-cut as you think, and wouldn't have been a good speedy deletion candidate. Even now, we've only got the input of a handful of editors. This is usually the type of article that I totally rewrite and re-source to show that there's clearly enough coverage and content here to meet the WP:GNG. I'm just not that motivated to do that since I'm not all that big on mobile gaming, and don't especially feel inclined to help out a company that clearly went out of their way to use Wikipedia as a means of personal promotion... Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry if I seemed to go on a rant there... BusterD (talk) 15:25, 28 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. Michig (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Straccia[edit]

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

No sign this person meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NBIO. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, also included references are not valid RS, many are just result pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a User:Umberto Straccia. Maybe he could help establish the notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've speedied this twice already as spam, not least because of the multiple spam links to the sales site for his book. Why you should want to ignore the spam and ask him why he is notable is beyond me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I detect signs of impatience here. This is a poorly-cited BLP article, and who knows, the person who edited it may have some relationship with the subject. These are reasons for discomfort; but they are not reasons for deletion. That must rest on the notability of the subject. Google Scholar returns 5406 citations of his papers; the h-index is 36 and the i10-index is 102. Microsoft Academic gives 175 publications, 2305 citations in AI, Information Retrieval and Databases; it lists his most cited papers as 'Reasoning within Fuzzy Description Logics' (242 citations) and the co-authored 'The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages' (193 citations). He has incidentally collaborated and co-authored papers with dozens of colleagues, another mark of a leading academic. The article truthfully claims that Straccia has given an invited Keynote talk at the International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, which is certainly a Reliable Source; being invited to give a keynote talk is evidence that in that field, Straccia is noted as a leading authority. I hesitate to mention his book on fuzzy logic and semantic web languages, but it has been reputably published and is a substantial textbook in its field. Whether this is enough to make him notable or not, it is certainly enough to require proper consideration, not hasty deletion. I'll be happy to come back and !vote when other people have considered his case. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither an h-index of 36, nor a number of 242 citations to a single publication are extremely high in computer science, where the frequency of publication is enormous. I cannot establish using MS Academic that the SUM conference where Straccia is a major conference; its citation scores are low in MS Academic, and double-checking in GScholar shows them typically twice as high: a handful of cites for the most-cited works. I.e., the sources fail the bibliometrics test. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, then we should Delete. Thanks Qwertyus for doing the assessment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this article because I was hunting down live autobiographies that slipped through the cracks. Created by WP:SPA. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:52, 24 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. A completely different article than when the AFD started and obvious the momentum would continue to be "keep" now. Dennis - 2¢ 16:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Spafford[edit]

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

The subject may have been an expert in a very narrow field, however, there is no coverage from reliable secondary sources. The only source comes from his own interest group. Notability not established, fails WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Won four medals in his area of expertise. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete almost all the sources provided are primary. He needs coverage in mainstream media which is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the sources are not primary, and The Guardian seems like mainstream media to me. Narrow field is not a consideration; there are lots of articles on people who are renowned only in a single field, like politicians and athletes. Passes WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much expanded since the AfD nom, and as Hawkeye7 notes, plenty of secondary sources and easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:51, 26 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. The 70-word stub that was first brought to AFD has received a great deal of editorial attention, becoming a 927-word c-class article. The article is not a violation of policy, and now informs readers and serves Wikipedia. Looking at some of the article's edit summaries, I do wish to caution those who may wish to remove certain citations, that under WP:SELFSOURCE, non-contentious information that is not unduly self-serving MAY be supplied by the organization itself. Thanks to the attention of many, this article is supported by numerous WP:RS/MC, the organization is widely accepted through academic consensus and wide use by others. There is no reasonable expectation that ESADA would have the same level of mainstream media attention as might Burger King. Being a non-profit scholarly organization and not a for-profit corporation, guideline allows that the GNG is not the final arbiter of what improves the project. There is no need to rehash the discussion, and I will not have one portion of WP:CORP make other portions ignorable, but I am more convinced by WP:CORPDEPTH's instructing on how SIGCOV is not the FINAL and ONLY notability measure, when it says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability". Multiple independent sources are now part of this article, and calling them "trivial or incidental" becomes a judgement call. It's a scholarly non-profit organization, after all... not a for-profit enterprise. While I might have tended more toward a solid keep, I think a non-consensus will encourage continued improvements to serve the project and its readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Sleep Apnea Database[edit]

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

non-notable collaboration. no independent sources provided that show WP:NOTABILITY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 07:04, 18 October 2014‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the ERS article partially satisfies WP:N. I did a quick Google Search and also turned up [61]. Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that source is scientific article is by the group. we need independent sources showing that the group is notable. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment as nominator. seems to be a vanity posting. no sources showing that the group itself is notable. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - cited in 21 scholarly works. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you'd expect a database to be cited, but that's no indication (in Wikipedia's terms) of the project's notability. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies WP:N.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for both of you, citing papers produced by the project does not provide notability for the project which is what this article is about. please provide ~~a rationale for the actual project.~~ independent sources discussing the project, not its work thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC) (copyedit to try to express this more clearly Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You clearly have not had the courtesy to click on the link provided and check which 21 scholarly references were provided. In what way does the American Thoracic Society paper, for example, constitute "papers produced by the project"? --Mais oui! (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:TPG, please comment on content, not contributors, and please actually address what I wrote. please respond to this which I will try to say more clearly: having other scientists citing papers produced by the project, is not the same as independent sources describing the project itself which is what the articleis about. For example, the Human Genome Project itself was widely discussed in the scientific literature and in the media (like [this]) - and of course its work has been cited a zillion times. We need the former kind of thing to show WP:NOTABILITY -- sources discussing the project itself. Do you see what I mean? (please try to AGF and to give me a thoughtful answer. thanks) Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The WP:PRIMARY sources listed by Mais oui! are effectively contain only passing mentions of the subject; they do not discuss the database itself, and so they're not particularly useful in writing an article or establishing notability. I'm not seeing anything useful in gbooks or gnews. The article cited by Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo above is the kind of work that would establish notability, but it has been cited all of two times per gscholar. Absent any additional WP:RS that discusses the database proper, I'm not seeing a path to notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Cartographies in my view that source, being written by the project members itself, fails WP:INDY. We need independent sources to show notability. Yes? Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jytdog. I think a sufficiently high citation count cures concerns about independence. For example, LogP machine relies for its notability on Culler's own publication, but that publication has been cited (as of a few minutes ago) 1762 times. The point of WP:INDEPENDENT is to make manufactured notability more difficult. Where notability clearly has not been manufactured, I don't see an advantage to exclude a source on ground of being insufficiently independent. (Not that it matters here, of course.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of source coverage among multiple references. — Cirt (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt. You're seeing something I'm not, and I'd like to figure out why I missed it. Can you point me to a couple of references you found that have good coverage? Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sleep Apnea Diagnostic and Therapeutic Devices Market Expected to Reach USD 6.43 Billion Globally in 2019: Transparency Market Research". India Pharma News. Contify.com. May 12, 2014 – via LexisNexis. — there's an additional interesting source. Also I saw lots of fascinating source coverage in a search at Google Scholar. — Cirt (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt. I'm going to have to disagree with you on the "Sleep Apnea" cite; that was published by PRNewsWire here (and so is unlikely to be independent) and the database is mentioned in just a single sentence ("Also, according to The European Sleep Apnea Database (ESADA), by March 2014, enrolled patients reached 15,956 along with 5,313 follow up visits."). If there's a google scholar cite you've found that has more than a passing reference I'd love to take a look, but most of what I notice there just cited the database without giving any further description. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted already by Mais oui!, above, the academic journals discussing the subject are independent of the organization itself. — Cirt (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, those are publications by the group - they are not independent. Not like, say the NY Times reporting on the Human Genome Project. This article really seems like an academic vanity piece to me. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some may be by the group, but certainly not all. If it seems like a vanity piece, hopefully that could be improved through editing, research, and article talk page discussion. — Cirt (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find me a few sources that contain more than a passing reference and I'll be happy to take on the task of improving the article. From what I've been able to find so far, though, researchers in this area consider the database to be important enough to cite but not important enough to discuss. (By way of illustration, the second peer-reviewed article I wrote in grad school now has 95 cites, but the program it describes is only discussed in my original paper. You might consider that sufficient to establish notability; if so, we'll need to agree to disagree, despite the fact that I'd love to have an enWP article on that work.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ecstatic if you wanted to take on the task of improving the article!!! As you know, WP:NRVE notes: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." One must consider source coverage of the topic of the article, not simply lack of citations in the article, itself. — Cirt (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both Lesser and I have looked - there are no' sources that discuss the database project per se that are independent of the group that is making it. That is why I nominated the article for deletion and why Lesser is supporting deletion. Would you please speak to that Cirt? Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd explain in more detail here at this AFD page but that doesn't always convince everyone — WP:NRVE is supposed to apply here, but really the best thing to convince others commenting "delete" at an AFD is to simply improve the article, itself. I'd work on the article itself and improve its quality to WP:GA status, but I'm fearful of doing that due to evidence of recent and ongoing disruption in the article's edit history, between multiple users. — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Two editors are telling you that they have looked and there are no independent sources on this. so you cite WP:NRVE which says " objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". I really don't understand. Why are you ignoring what we are saying? How could you possibly make this a GA when there are no independent sources giving it significant attention? please explain. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't make it a WP:GA right now, as it fails WP:WIAGA for Stability, due to disruption and edit-warring in the recent edit history. So I'm quite hesitant to even try to improve its quality at the moment. — Cirt (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

crazy that completely ducks the question. will discuss with you elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. I don't want to get into this further at this AFD itself. I'd much rather simply improve the article, itself, in quality, as a quality improvement project. I've found that improving the quality of articles at AFD can sometimes be a fun process. But I can't, and I won't, due to the article's state of instability from edit-warring and disruptive editing as shown in the article history. — Cirt (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

done here. this has gone to a bad place and i am not going there too. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Jytdog, calm down, I don't mean to upset anyone. I mean strictly for purposes of WP:WIAGA good article criteria, the article fails right now due to instability. Please, surely you can understand that. I look at the edit history and I see at least three (3) instances of people reverting each other in the last twenty-four (24) hours alone. Surely you can understand no GA Reviewer would pass that GA candidate with that going on. — Cirt (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"disruptive editing" is a very strong charge. i have no desire to participate in a discussion where people throw that around. really, outta here. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Jytdog, I apologize, how about just simply disruption? People undoing each others' edits? Reverts going on during the past 24 hours? Sound better? — Cirt (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the apology, that is very kind of you. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I really only meant basically that the article is not stable now. — Cirt (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Additional sources under alternate name spelling: European Sleep Apnoea Database. — Cirt (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note there's an additional 33 (thirty-three) results from Google Scholar under this alternate spelling. — Cirt (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... but nothing that confers notability on this topic so far as I can tell. Or did you have any source in mind? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Alexbrn, I haven't had time to read all 54 of those articles in Google Scholar yet under those two (2) different spellings mentioned above. — Cirt (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a pass of the search snippets and so far as I could see this database was just being mentioned or cited. Let us know if you find any significant coverage (though the AfD may have closed by then!). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Alexbrn, I agree that "making a pass of the search snippets" is simply not the same as ideally having full access to all the journal articles. The problem is that research of this nature takes weeks or months, not the days allotted to one WP:AFD. — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hazard that most people familiar with working with academic content should be able to determine the notability of this topic fairly quickly (and I've also used local academic library searches where I'm located, which are -- pretty good). What's an AfD? 28 days? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Alexbrn, AFDs are seven (7) days. — Cirt (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Also called European Sleep Apnoea Cohort. Part of the problem in researching this is that they go by so many different alternate spellings and names! — Cirt (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I'm assessing this discussion correctly (and please do correct me if I'm wrong), no independent reliable sources have been found that provide significant coverage. Sources written by or clearly connected to the subject certainly do not count as independent -- we cannot assume that because these non-independent sources exist that independent ones do too. But if independent reliable blah blah blah blah are found, please do let me know and I'll happily change my !vote.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

Please note that I've done a great deal of work on this article: Compare (1) prior version at start of deletion discussion with (2) version after my recent work on the article. I'm still in the process of additional ongoing research on the topic, and I've noted, above, that the topic has been cited in sources under multiple different spellings of names, which has not made research easy.
Additionally: Per WP:CORPDEPTH: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." — I believe I've shown that with improvements to the article post AFD nomination.
Per WP:ORGIND: "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." — And I've found the recent (2013) book Clinical Genomics: Practical Applications for Adult Patient Care said ESDADA was an example of the kind of initiative which affords an "excellent opportunity" for future collaborative research (their words in quotes).
Per WP:NONPROFIT: "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." = Yes, with sleep centres in multiple countries all over Europe. "Factors that have attracted widespread attention." = Yes, the organization's research has been cited in 21 journals under spelling "European Sleep Apnea Database", and another 33 journals under spelling "European Sleep Apnoea Database"
Finally, again as per WP:HEY, the article has undergone substantial improvements since deletion nomination, DIFF.

For the above reasons, I respectfully request that this article page be Kept on Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration and/or your re-consideration, it's most appreciated. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it seems you didn't find any good sources that discuss this database, but have gone ahead anyway and made an article of coatracks and stretched nothings. Passing mentions and citations of data in the database do not confer notability on the topic of the database itself: you mention WP:CORPDEPTH but it says "incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability"; it appears your best source is the genomics book which mentions the database once in a single sentence, as an example of a useful initiative. A textbook WP:GNG failure it seems. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Alexbrn, a most incorrect assessment of my thought process here. I'm actually still in the process of additional ongoing research, but unfortunately there isn't much time left in this deletion debate and like I said above, good research sometimes takes longer than seven (7) days. I shall continue to research the topic more during the limited time left allotted. — Cirt (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn:You somehow overlooked WP:CORPDEPTH saying "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." While wonderful to have, per policy and guideline SIGCOV is not an "absolute" mandate. We do well to not cherry-pick just those portions of applicable guideline that serve a desire for deletion. — Cirt (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not, which is why I drew your attention to the following sentence which qualifies the one you picked! It says "incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability". And after a more than exhaustive search, "incidental" coverage (not merely insubstantial) is all we have here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AfD is ridiculous. You have dozens of scientists writing about this database in peer-reviewed journals, and people are saying that in the act of writing about it they are participating in the program, therefore the sources are primary. Confusing (A) the database with (B) the program to maintain the database with (C) individual authors. Completely silly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who's writing about the database or its project? There are some citation of (data in) the database and a few passing mentions but that's it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man, come on. How about [62], [63], [64], [65]. You want to exclude these as "primary" on the grounds that the authors said something non-trivial about the data, and are therefore "connected" to the subject. Well, scientists usually write about the things they study, so I guess academic papers can no longer establish notability. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources, not independent of the subject, and have made little impact. They don't even have any kind of in-depth coverage of the ESADA initiative itself but focus primarily on aspects of datasets loaded into the database which is just mentioned is passing. Notability generally requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and it's not possible to write a decent article without them. Scientists do indeed write about things they study; when other scientists take note and write about that work we have secondary sources and this will appear on Wikipedia's radar, since WP is an encyclopedia which exists to digest accepted knowledge at the tertiary level, not to be kind of secondary source scraping stuff together from weak primaries. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have primary sources saying they have used the database, not really much more than that. We need independent sources actually describing the database to establish notability, not just that they've used it. Otherwise we don't have anything to generate content from, which is a pretty telling sign that we don't have enough to establish notability from Wikipedia's standards. Best to delete for now, and if we do get information that indicates notability in the future, it wouldn't be hard to create the article again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to mention (because I don't think I should have to) that the database is also discussed in other sources: [66], [67]. There are also mentions in e.g. the Huffington Post. I'm not sure if you're looking for a dedicated puff piece (which is not the sort of thing that is written about scientific projects of any but the grandest scale, and anyway ought to carry less weight than actual scientific papers) or a technical report on the project (which you would then decide is primary, because the author, having studied the project, became affiliated with it.) The database in question is a collaborative effort of dozens, perhaps hundreds of people, and it and its contents are the subject of a number of journal articles by different groups. Let's stop acting like somebody cooked this up in his basement and wrote a paper on it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not "discussed" really; more like mentioned in passing. What do we learn other than it's (a) a database (b) EU-funded and (c) might be useful? This is nowhere near meeting the "significant coverage" bar Wikipedia wants. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That summarizes my concern exactly. A lot of the keeps are saying we have tons of sources, but when you dig into those sources, there's nothing we can really generate content from for the article. That's looking pretty cut and dry right now. Unless that changes, we're looking at a pretty obvious delete at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The links noted above by The Great Gazoo and Sammy1339 [68] shows that research by the group including researchers from sixteen (16) countries was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine by the American Thoracic Society in 2010. — Cirt (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've done a significant amount more work on the article. With great thanks to Sammy1339 above for finding additional sources. The article now documents research by the organization and its clinicians for every single year of its existence. It'd be quite a shame to lose this educational and encyclopedic scientific medical resource from Wikipedia. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 21:36, 23 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) 09:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Chung[edit]

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

Unreferenced (apart from Linkedin which I don't think is a RS), COI (written by User:Eddie Chung Foon Yuen), WP:NOTCV, orphan (the one article space inlink is probably incorrect). DexDor (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA autobiography (also linked from the person's user page). The subject lists that he has done some lecturing, but without evidence of meeting WP:ACADEMIC criteria, and some market research work, without evidence of meeting WP:ANYBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. could be done under A7. Can't find anything for this person. Cannolis (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 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. Michig (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Macc[edit]

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

Just some D-list Nicky Minaj clone. Zero mentions in reliable sources, no charting songs, thus fails WP:NMUSIC Tarc (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user Tarc is trolling and disrespecting a artist. Don't delete. User:Baphomet_Dynasty

Delete. Nothing on the article constitutes a RS. Can't find anything either. Fails WP:BAND. Cannolis (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. "Just some D-list Nicky Minaj clone." is not a good reason to delete this artist's article. This rapper has worked with some big names such as Shade Sheist and Philthy Rich and is gaining exposure through YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:50C1:CE00:2993:F4FA:D64B:E2E4 (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 2606:6000:50C1:CE00:2993:F4FA:D64B:E2E4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Then it is Wikipedia:Too soon if she is just gaining exposure. Cannolis (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Nina Macc is CEO of a label. She already has millions of views on YouTube and made a name for herself. Nina Macc is not a Nicki Minaj clone. She is her own recognized artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariana Grande adorer (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC) :— Ariana Grande adorer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strike vote by confirmed sockpuppet.[reply]

Comment - Note that while a lot of details and such were expanded by IPs overnight, all of it is speaks of the famous people this person has worked with and the links to her songs on itunes, none of which meet WP:N. And no, "a million youtube views" isn't a yardstick that the Wikipedia uses. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This artist can be found in the public ACE database provided by The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and she has a number of registered compositions, some of which show evidence of placement on major syndicated television shows such as "Graceland" on The USA Network and other MTV Networks related broadcasting. Her music is being aired on National FM radio in the United States which can be reviewed using the Neilsen Broadcasting Database System. Charting is not required for an artist to have an article on Wikipedia thus should not be considered a factor for deletion. The commentors in this deletion request clearly write with an overtone of a personal dislike for the artist, which is not grounds for legitimate deletion. (Nmgemg) 15:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC) — Nmgemg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You have a lack of understanding of what it means to be notable in terms of this project's policies and guidelines. Being notable doesn't just mean "I have seen this artist on tv and heard her on the radio; notability is established for a musician when multiple reliable, secondary sources cover the subject in-depth (WP:RSis also worth a read). There is also a secondary notability criteria for musicians, WP:NMUSIC, where yes, one of the possible criteria is a charting single. I have no personal dislike for the subject herself; I am disdainful of people who create articles on clearly minor celebrities. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet the notability guidelines.Onel5969 (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has zero reliable sources and attempts to assert notability by using iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, YouTube, etc., as references. No evidence of meeting WP:ANYBIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:42, 22 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. While some links to mentions exist, the quality hasn't convinced the community that they are significant. Being temporary isn't the issue, but quality and depth concerns are. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thewittyshit.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first nomination was resulted "no consensus". Article about a website that hasn't received much significant third party coverage. There is a list of sources in the article but it is not enough. They are all one time coverage. And the article is actually a permanent stub. That means there is little verifiable information to be found on the subject and there is little important to say about the subject which means the article is about a subject that was briefly notable, but no longer receives any coverage i.e. single event. And it is likely that it will not receive any future coverage.

Permastubs are unsatisfying articles –they leave little potential for future editing, and by their nature are not very informative. There is no possibility for any expansion, nor any topic that they could be merged into, so I can't find any way. Jim Carter (from public cyber)' 05:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources in the article are normal start-up coverage; I am not seeing anything subsequently. Nor does an Alexa rank beyond 3.5M indicate something being missed. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting source coverage from multiple references, also some mentioned by Northamerica1000 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thewittyshit.com. — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: In what basis? Have you got some new sources? Or are you talking about those existing one time coverage? Don't use the term "interesting" here. People might confuse this as WP:ILIKEIT !vote. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 04:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the prior AFD, Northamerica1000 said: "Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources: India Today, DNA News. There's also coverage in Yahoo Campus (India) and mentions in Mid-Day." I agree with that comment. — Cirt (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: So you don't agree that the sources mentioned by Northamerica1000 are one time coverage, which is certainly not enough to pass our notability threshold. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources mentioned by Northamerica1000 in the 2012 AfD are the ones that I described above as "normal start-up coverage". Aside of course from being unable to recheck the Yahoo one, which has expired, they all seem to me to be "here's an interesting new start up by some guys from IIT"; happy to change my view if there is really strong evidence that their endeavor is of encyclopaedic relevance? AllyD (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, notability is not temporary. — Cirt (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree on that principle, but are these pieces of start-up floss actually evidence of notability? Any and every start-up puts itself out to get that level of basic PR coverage; if they don't they're dead in the water before they even start. It is simply passing coverage, not in depth coverage demonstrating notability. But, as I said, I'm open to convincing if any subsequent actual coverage of this venture can be identified. AllyD (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No truly in depth independent coverage in refs and googling in their home market finds nothing independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 19 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. Michig (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jago Punjab Party[edit]

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

Not notable Political organisation. No significant coverage. Fails our notability threshold. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 04:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of importance as well as notability is not able to establish from the source(s) used under reference section as well as from the official website of the Election Commission of India. In fact it seems to be the case of WP:INHERITORG, where it came in news because of involvement in a event known as Jago Punjab Yatra. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Single event coverage which is not enough to pass notability. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's only 1 citation.[69] Not even mainly focused on this party. It was notable in 2010, but never after that? That's the main question, answer is that the party was never notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete My relatives live in Punjab and don't know about this party. No importance and notability. Fails. --Dhwanikaxoxo (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:58, 24 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. Michig (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stand Up to Cancer UK[edit]

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

It may be a case of WP:CFORK. It's the same as Stand Up to Cancer – I think it should be redirected to Stand Up to Cancer#British campaign because as it owns, the UK event does not have sufficient coverage. Karlhard (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the user Karl hard so determined to get rid of this page, I;ve notice that all he does suggest pages to get rid of. its like he has horse blinkers on. He first tried Speedy and people disagreed with him. Now he's trying normal deletion claiming its WP:CFORK. The main page is full of information from the USA version and how it was created. THIS PAGE is about the british version etc with MORE ref, than the main page..... Its also pretty clear the content is not the same. Do I have really give list pages which clear shows this is not Forking? Karl has already told off a user for removing the speedy tag https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jim_Michael&oldid=630053176 One has to wonder is he really being neutral here? Also the main Stand up to cancer page is in a right mess and I've just added new tags to try and help sort it out. Do we really need to force UK information back into a already messy page? --Crazyseiko (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Stand Up to Cancer as per nom. I don't see the purpose of distinguishing the two campaigns here on Wikipedia when they are essentially the same thing, just in different countries. A parallel would be making a McDonald's UK. Cannolis (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true its the norm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Relief_USA not all in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Relief What about ITV, these companies all broadcast to the same area, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Television and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Weekend_Television If this is the case the deletion tag SHOULD NOT BE ON this page but rather a merge tag...... since you would need a redirect...--Crazyseiko (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mcdonlads page is a complete mess, with different countries details all rammed into a single page.

Keep. The Office has articles for each country's version of the sitcom, including The Office (UK TV series) and The Office (U.S. TV series), because they are distinct versions of the same show. SU2C is similar in that respect - the British campaign and telethon is a distinct version - different presenters, features and participants. Jim Michael (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Reasons as I postage above. --Crazyseiko (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP At the moment both pages are incomplete but from what is already written the the UK and USA version appear to be different in that the UK version is a series of factual, entertainment and health programming building up to a live telethon on only one network, where the USA version is telethon on multiple networks. Combining the two pages is going to make for one very big and very cluttered page give that both versions have already run for at least two years and look set to run for a number more, lets give the the people working on this a little longer to "complete" it. WyrmVane (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Sports Relief has its own page and Comic Relief USA, as cited above, also does. Adamiow (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, declaring some WP:COI as Wikipedian in Residence at CRUK. The US & UK SUTC are completely separate organizations, and the events also pretty different. There's no rationale for merging. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 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. Dennis - 2¢ 16:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green Storage and the Emerald™ Program[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Article is a contested PROD with the following deletion reasons: "No sources cited, no indication of notability" and "Trademarks are almost never notable, and no evidence exists that this meets WP:GNG." Euryalus (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any evidence that this trademarked name is notable, nor is the company that owns it. Please, convince me otherwise. I have no horse in this race. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 23 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. A bit unusual, but it looks like some work has been done and the issue is likely a matter of editing rather of policy. Regardless, there is a lack of voting and plenty of comments, so I'm going to close as "no consensus", with no prejudice against refiling. Dennis - 2¢ 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Mimran[edit]

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

Confusing and very poorly sourced, this article seems to have been a direct translation of the French Wikipedia article by a single issue editor. Apart from some claim to have been selected for something while a student, I can't see any evidence (or claims) of success, or reviews, or news coverage. Citations are largely to the galleries, or Saatchi online website, or businesses where his work was displayed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see that you asked for the deletion of the page, and I’m surprised by this. I can’t see why you’d ask to delete an article which is part of contemporary art. Wikipedia requires sources for every claim made, and I believe those were provided for the page of Michel Mimran. Of course, the perception regarding the « quality » of the sources differs from person to person. You are asking for « evidence » of success, and I believe that a Diploma of the prestigious Ecole Nationale des Beaux-Arts of Paris, (FYI : he had the diploma n°3000 in 1976, for an institution that has existed for several centuries) along with notable exhibitions fit in that category. The Ecole Nationale des Beaux-Arts of Paris hasn’t scanned the works of its former students, hence why no links could be attached to the article. Tangible proofs, such as Beaux-Arts and Architecture diplomas, are in paper form.

You may also not be aware that the CAL (Cercle artistique du Luxembourg), which is also cited in the references, is the official art institution/academy in Luxembourg. To be part of the CAL, is also an « evidence » of success. Not every artist can be part of it : it requires to pass the selection and have had three successful exhibitions for 3 years in a row. Michel Mimran is also one of the only foreign members of the CAL. You can see it here : http://cal.lu/galerie.php

If by « evidence » of success, you’re are referring to the lack of art galleries mentioned, here’s the reason : Michel Mimran has enough private art collectors and welcomes his clients in his atelier in Luxembourg. He’s still working on the field of memory in art and continuously produces artworks.

The news coverages, mostly come from RTL channel in Luxembourg (part of RTL group, Europe's leading entertainment company) (Links n° 6 & n°7) I am sorry it seems confusing to you, but these are part of the Luxemburgish press. I’ll update some links as I’ve seen one or two have changed since the creation of the page. It's a problem that can occur with « online links » : they don’t always remain active and online. I have also plenty of tangible sources /news paper articles, diplomas, press coverages, that are not available online.

I wish you did contact me to express your opinions first, rather than immediately upload a wikipedia page deletion. Wikipedia also stands for freedom of expression. This page has been written after a lot of researches, I see that you have two University degrees. So do I, in Literature and History/Political science. I speak 4 languages, and I have multiple interests, -contemporary art is one of them. This article is not a fancruft, it’s a biography about a French contemporary artist and architect. I have left countless informations aside, because I’m aware of Wikipedia’s source policy, (just to name one : As an artist, Michel Mimran was asked to be a member of the Association des Trophées francophones, but this sort of information is not published online obviously) Michel Mimran is part of the contemporary culture scene, and none of the material used is unsourced and potentially libelous and harmful.

Wikipedia is one of the largest general reference work. Since anyone can access and edit the website, it’s also the opportunity for people from all around the world to share their knowledge. We can always learn someting new. You may/or may not be aware of the work of Michel Mimran, but this is also what Wikipedia is for : to gather knowledge from all over the world and make it accessible to the majority of people.

Nevertheless I’m very glad to see the interest you’re showing in this artist, and if you’d like to have a look at the artist’s work, you’re more than welcome to give me an email and I’ll transfer it to the artist, who will send you pictures of his latest artworks. Sincerely, Think88 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Think88 — Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello, Think88. For an article to be eligible for inclusion on the site, Wikipedia needs strong sources noting not just that an artist exists (and has their fans), but that their work is notable and discussed significantly by reliable sources. It's not a place to upload articles about people in the name of "freedom of speech" (because there are other venues for the promotion of artists). For example, sourcing your artist's work to a catalogue of an exhibition of their work doesn't necessarily tell us why their work is important in a broader cultural sense. Effectively, all this is is directly promotional of their work. Looking through the sources, they are mostly galleries where the artist exhibits. An artist may have many clients and a studio, but they need to be of wider cultural significance to have a Wikipedia article, and this needs to be demonstrated through the sourcing available (WP:ARTIST is a list of specific criteria M. Mimran needs to satisfy before he gets his own article).

Because the RTL link isn't working for me, I'm not going to make a judgement on whether their work is notable or not, but the article needs significantly more sources to third-party commentary on their work to judge notability. If you can find those for us, then the article could be revised to the point where it can possibly be kept. Additionally, more sources are needed for the first section. LS1979 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHi, thank you for the clarifications. I'll add some updates and more sources and third-party commentaries to the article, and hopefully prevent a possible deletion of the article. Sincerely, Think88 — Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Update: Hello, I've deleted several non-working links, and have added more sources ( newpapers and medias) coming from third-party commentaries. Some sources refer to his work on perception and its impact, and some confirm his birth and other informations which you were questioning. Sincerely, Think88 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Think88[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.