< 1 October	3 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ProudNet[edit]

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

advertising and fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cleaned up the advertisement and listspam, and what remains isn't even enough for me to understand what ProudNet is supposed to be. Unsourced and unsourceable to any reliable sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:35, 4 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) • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it's a non-article. EBY (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets, such as a developer or a game that uses the technology. (The only one that mentions it is Vindictus and that part isn't even sourced.) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 01:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert. Failure of GNG Mr. Guye (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notabilty. Article fails WP:GNG as a result of insignificant coverage to reliable sources.Wikicology (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG, the nom, Salvidrim, etc. There's virtually no content left anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - I have recognized the problem and edited with an objective point of view. hyej (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2014 (GMT)

For the record, the article still has no sources czar ♔ 14:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced advert by non-notable e-tech company.Cramyourspam (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with everyone else above, I can't find any sources that establish notability. I am One of Many (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - I would like you to refer to http://www.nettention.com/en/down/proudnet.pdf . there are explanations related to reatures. hyej (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2014 (GMT)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their deletion nomination and there are no outstanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Randolph Hampton[edit]

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

Do not meet WP:MUSICBIO, references given are not even references, just links to Wikipedia pages. The subject claims to have a lot of notability but do not provide references. When you search in Google, all that comes up is less than 5,000 results. IMDB also claims notability, but the subject is uncredited. Karlhard (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please comment of this music-related issue. I may be wrong. Karlhard (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal - We will be working on this article, updating and providing references. I found this. Karlhard (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. speeedy delete as hoax DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Stubb[edit]

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

No sources; authenticity cannot be verified. I only found social media profiles on an internet search. This shouldn't be the case if the subject is truly "nationally recognized". Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 21:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-Yep nothing else I can say. Wgolf (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non-notable track and field athlete, and probable hoax per WP:G3. My Google search revealed seven hits, none of which lent any credible support to the claimed basis for notability. Assuming the subject is an American, USA Track & Field, the U.S. national track & field governing body, has no bio of her on its website. That speaks volumes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just in case anyone is wondering: someone put the CSD tag just before I AfDed the article, so that's why there's two tags. --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 00:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stats Camp[edit]

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

Article is a promo piece for what appears a worthy project but fails inclusion criteria for this encyclopedia. CSD tag was challenged and PROD tag will be likely as well, so posting here for discussion —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:46, 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 22:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advert that lacks sources entirely. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried several Google searches, but the only useful source I found was an article in the Lawrence Journal-World. One article in a local paper isn't enough to meet WP:GNG, so Delete unless further significant coverage in independent reliable sources is uncovered. Qwfp (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, the article is of no encyclopedic importance. The extent of WP:ADVERTISEMENT is too obvious to ignore. Wikicology (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS, WP:NOTE, WP:COI, WP:GNG. non-sourced article about a summer course (or bundle thereof) at a college? that's not notable. neither are any of the summer band camps and basketball camps colleges host. oh, it is for adults? well, adult lifelong learning summer courses are not notable. nor are college summer terms --even classes for grad students. this is just a bunch of themed classes for adults. all that makes it something "different" is that it has a snappy logo. that's it. merge some of the content to the texas tech article and delete this non-notable advert. since the original writer has only written about this and about the non-notable professor who teaches it, there's a prima facie case for WP:COI. this article looks like a prop to try to make the non-notable teacher, Todd D. Little somehow noteworthy. this article's original writer first wrote the Todd D. Little article and then write the Stats Camp article --and then was kept busy removing delete-requests. this article is a sort of extension of the likely WP:AUTO seemingly happening at the Todd D. Little article --which should be deleted too. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Bills[edit]

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

Was thinking of putting a DB-bio stub. But am putting this instead. It is a self sourced page by the user Wgolf (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious self promotion without a credible assertion of notability. Lots of social media fluff but no reliable source coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant self promotion Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - self-promotional BLP AUTOBIOGRAPHY bigtime. The article, Tristan Bills was written by user Tristanbills --a 1-subject account which has only written about Trisdan Bills. also fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:NOTE, and WP:THISISAWFUL --okay, i made up that last one. but with text like this, the word speedy comes to mind: "Tristan's ambition quickly outgrew the confines of such a small town.... Throughout his adolescence Tristan was battling depression and anxiety.... Tristan's interests are undoubtably (sic) broad. At once he could be studying British words that aren't commonly used in the United States, and the next instance he could be reading stories of transmogrification. He's always looking for something he hasn't discovered yet, and has a huge interest in Noology and a respect for knowledge.... On October 26, 2010, Tristan married his longtime friend, Rachiel." AND the only sources listed are self-authored (his twitter, his facebook, etc). nuke it. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cynical self-aggrandising page that has no sources to justify it. Libby norman (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Source[edit]

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

I'm unable to find sources that show Vision Source is the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as per WP:ORG. The article lacks third-party references and searches turn up proof that it exists and tons of websites run by franchises, but no significant coverage where the company itself is the subject. Stesmo (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not turning up WP:RS references that can demonstrate notability of this franchise firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, I haven't found any evidence that this has anything to meet notability for organisations. Libby norman (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious corporate spam is obvious. Fails WP:ORG. Nha Trang 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Clear case for A7. Alexf^(talk) 16:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Tsimbalova[edit]

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

Another unotable beach volleyball player! Wgolf (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wouldn't this be better served by CSD A7? I marked it for CSD as such. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 20:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RegistryKey-well I have been putting so many prods and AFD's the past few days on the players-it is insane! Wgolf (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The World of Social Work[edit]

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

Unsourced first-person essay. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete rambling personal WP:OR screed. "writing" includes bits like "The Wonderful World of Social Work! ....Just think, I myself a C.N.A have knowledge of the healthcare field. So after obtaining an degree in social work I can explore with that degree the medical field.... I also have history of childcare experience. So with that knowledge and experience I could potentially work with the youth.... You don’t have to be limited or limit yourself. SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND……… " --and, yeah, what else is there to say? this is not an encyclopedia article. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-encyclopaedic stream of consciousness. Sadly it doesn't seem to fit any CSD categories. AllyD (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and no evidence that this adds anything other than a point of view, as stated above. Libby norman (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as Yashu Diman. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yashu Dhimaan[edit]

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

Falls under too soon. And there seems to be confusion over this article as it starts as a male then goes into a girl (it even has a picture of a girl) Wgolf (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-looks like it was deleted already Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yashu Dhiman Wgolf (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Color of Change[edit]

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

Page appears to be a vanity article. It is not a notable organization, and the article cites no reliable sources. Instead, it cites to its own website for all the information about its activities. GaiaHugger (talk) 18:36, 2 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 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep co-founded by the newsworthy Van Jones and (at least lately) has lots of outside RS coverage.Cramyourspam (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't proposed deleting Van Jones' entry. But the fact that he may belong to a gym or a local flower club doesn't make those organizations notable. As I indicated, the article relies entirely on Color of Changes' website for its activities and cites no reliable sources at all. When reliable sources are mentioned, they discuss the controversies CoC may claim be interested in, but don't actually mention CoC. GaiaHugger (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:17, 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 19:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Complete WP:SNOW here. Just click on the Google News link at the top of this AFD and you'll find a multitude of reliable sources covering the subject, just in the last month. Yes, our article needs major cleanup and cites CoC's own website too much (I added a third-party tag) but that's no basis for deletion. Just browsing through the cited sources I found the following news stories with significant coverage: Nonprofit Quarterly, NY Daily News, SF Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, HuffPo, MintPress, Hollywood Reporter, Seattle P-I. The nomination makes clear the nominator never even skimmed the references section. This is a naughty AfD. It qualifies for speedy keep under reasons 2 and 3. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. I was tempted to close this per SNOW, indeed, given the plethora of sources, but I'll let it ride for a little bit, for a very selfish reason: the article is terrible, and may benefit from someone picking up Fleischman's references (well, some of them--leave the Daily News out of it). Oh, keep. We've seen so many of these clubs and organizations and whatnot, and here's one that has actually made the news, even the real news. But the article needs to be completely rewritten, from top to bottom: what we have now is a list full of OR/synthesis and primary sourcing in a very predictable pattern--organizational announcement of action, newspaper reports of something having happened (whether as a result of the organization's action or not)--which cannot stand. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, the sources I linked to here are already in the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serious rewrite needed There are some serious weasel words and terms; the history section is just a list of controversies they've weigh in on (listed alphabtically!); many of the references only make passing mention of the organisation; many of the history subsections are 'launch' publicity without any info or analysis on whether this is still something they're campaigning or or whether they had any effect; he lede needs to be nuked; etc; etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite needed is not a delete vote, so will assume Stuartyeates means keep and rewrite/copyedit/cleanup...

keep as above, many references obtained. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above. This is notable in its activities and web presence and with ample sources, even if the article needs some work to improve said references and possibly balance in places. Libby norman (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ((Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie MacDonald[edit]

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

Fails to meet minimum requirements for a biographical article. Subject has had some negligible media coverage relating more to his autism than any accomplishment. Caper454 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject easily meets the General Notability Guidelines based on the seven references which are entirely about him, by major publications (Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, The Huffington Post, and CBC News). At nine million video views (four videos reaching over three hundred thousand) he also meets point 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER;

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Based on the discussion at Talk:Frankie MacDonald#Delete it seems the nominator either doesn't like Mr. MacDonald or his YouTube feed, and deems him unworthy to have a Wikipedia article.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss the proposed deletion, not the nominator's motives. Caper454 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I will do both. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep does have outside RS. and besides, with 3-million viewers, he's more popular than CNN --ha.Cramyourspam (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ A handful of mentions in the media can hardly be termed "significant coverage". Let's be honest: Frankie MacDonald is an autistic janitor at a shopping mall who has a YouTube channel. Is that enough to make someone notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Any legitimate media coverage which exists (and which has been used to source the article) deals almost exclusively with the fact that he's autistic and he's been ridiculed for his videos. He's not receiving media attention for accomplishments which create notability. These sources are questionable at best. Caper454 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does his occupation, or the fact that he has autism preclude him from having a Wikipedia article? The articles were written about him. Entire articles. Your opinion of the reason that these groups decided to write stories about him is irrelevant. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to stay on topic and watch the personal attacks. Caper454 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal attack, and that is entirely on topic. If autism and his occupation have nothing to do with why the article should be deleted, you should strike that sentence. If they are related to why the article should be deleted, you should explain why. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that "the fact that he has autism preclude(s) him from having a Wikipedia article". My point was simply that any media attention he has received concerns the facts that he A) has autism and B) has received substantial ridicule (online and radio) for his videos. He is not receiving media attention for a noteworthy accomplishment. Does being the subject of ridicule make one notable enough for inclusion here? Caper454 (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are belittling someone because they have a disability, what their day job is, or a combination thereof. And in answer to your last question, your opinion as to why someone receives coverage is not relevant. It is exactly that, your opinion (otherwise known as original research). The fact is he received coverage. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely not belittling the subject; I am simply stating what I'm reading in the cited sources you provided when you created the article. This isn't about me, so stay on topic. Caper454 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: struck duplicate !vote above. The nomination is considered the delete !vote. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough reputable third-party sources have been referenced and is highly likely to continue or increase in the future. As I stated on the subject's talk page, google Frankie MacDonald and let the results speak for themselves. It would appear that the nominator has a serious issue with Mr. MacDonald getting the credit he deserves to have regarding his popularity/appeal and has an axe to grind IMO. Regards, Aloha27 talk 22:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Great, another editor who can't engage in a discussion without making it personal. As I believe you are aware, I know Frankie MacDonald personally for many years and have never EVER had a problem with him on a personal level. My assertion that he isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article here should by no means be interpreted as having "a serious issue with Mr. MacDonald getting the credit he deserves" or having any type of "axe to grind". You should demonstrate some professionalism and retract that baseless accusation immediately. Caper454 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're admittedly closer than arm's length to the subject at hand. I strongly suggest you take a break, go for a walk or find something else to do for awhile while this is resolved. Regards, Aloha27 talk 22:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, knock it off. Aloha, you'll need to do better than "just Google it", and you can't make this a personal matter in this way: please read WP:AGF. Caper, I can't help but take your claims with a grain of salt but, either way, it doesn't matter: the article will be kept on its merits, not on whether he has a day job you respect. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, just because somebody garners a bit of "human interest" coverage for a non-encyclopedic achievement doesn't mean they suddenly warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. Of the seven sources cited here, further, two of them are just blogged reposts of specific weather forecast videos that he happened to post — which means we're looking at five real sources rather than seven. And while five sources would be more than enough coverage to get him over a subject-specific inclusion guideline if he actually met one, it's not enough coverage to get someone over WP:GNG.

And, for that matter, when we're talking about someone who's autistic, we should actually be exercising extra caution to protect his personal privacy. We already know that he's been a frequent and persistent target of online mockery and negative commentary, and his detractors would almost certainly try to use a Wikipedia article about him as another forum for that — but the wikimodel of allowing anybody to edit, and then relying on oversight by other editors to control for neutrality and accuracy, loses effectiveness very rapidly the lower a subject's actual public profile gets. Unsourced or POV criticism, and other inappropriate edits, can end up staying in our articles uncaught for months if the topic isn't widely known enough to generate a consistent volume of traffic — which is one of the key reasons why we even have notability standards to distinguish who belongs in here and who doesn't. So we should actually set the bar for his inclusion here a lot higher than just five pieces of human interest coverage, precisely in order to protect his privacy and dignity. The risk of vandalism or attack editing here is disproportionately high in relation to the quite limited level of public prominence that he actually holds, so we need to take extra precautions to mitigate that.

So what we have here is a person who (a) isn't notable for anything that would ordinarily be expected to get a person into an encyclopedia, (b) isn't really all that spectacularly well-sourced for WP:GNG purposes, and (c) has an overriding WP:BLP consideration under which we should strongly consider not having an article about him at all, precisely to avoid the risk of compounding harm. All of that, to me, spells a delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Some people don't believe the coverage is warranted, but that doesn't matter. As far as protecting his privacy and dignity goes, I think we should be careful and protect the page if it is vandalized, but there's no reason to delete the page over this hypothetical problem. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five articles can hardly be regarded as "significant coverage", thus WP:GNG is clearly not satisfied. Caper454 (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point, however, was that vandalism is not always caught promptly. Vandalism to Barack Obama's article, for example, will be caught within minutes because it gets a high volume of traffic — but a low-profile article like this might very well get fewer pageviews in an entire year than Obama's gets in one day, and vandalism quite frequently stays in such articles undetected for weeks or months. And no, five news articles is not enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did not find any of the arguments made in favour of deletion particularly compelling until I hit Bearcat's well-reasoned arguments, making me sit back and step away for a few hours to consider his cogent points. Nonetheless, I find myself disagreeing with him, and I came back to express my keep opinion and disagreement for the following reasons:

I'm not entirely sure what "human interest coverage" is and, even if the term applies to the sources here, I am unsure why such a description is relevant to this debate. I am unaware of any guideline or policy that would allow, require or encourage us to attribute less weight to such coverage. Arguably most coverage is "human interest" coverage. (That last sentence of mine is a little facetious, since I do understand what Bearcat is describing, but I don't think the distinction is a meaningful one for this discussion.)
I am not convinced that the subject's achievements are non-encyclopedic achievements. We have an entire category of articles on YouTube celebrities. I am not saying that in a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sense, nor am I trying to encourage an inane and soul-destroying debate over comparable numbers of YouTube views, but I am saying it merely to emphasize that the notion of encyclopedic achievement is evolving. Social media fame can be an encyclopedic achievement. What he has achieved can often, in fact, be expected to get a person into an encyclopedia.
I am satisfied that WP:GNG is easily met. The coverage meets every element of the definition of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG on its face - it addresses the subject directly, no OR is required to extract the content, and it is way more than just trivial mentions. I don't see anything language in WP:GNG which would dismiss the coverage MacDonald has received in a number of major Canadian media outlets as being insufficient. And although I totally get Bearcat's comments about "blogged reposts" for two of those sources, I think the fact that his videos are reposted in such a high profile source (with the accompanying discussion) is itself another indicia of notability. If anyone believes that coverage in the Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, CBC and Huffpost does not constitute "significant coverage" as it is defined in WP:GNG, then please provide more than the bald assertions that have been provided thus far - please point us to the explicit applicable guideline or policy language. And in response to Bearcat's comment about the article not being "all that spectacularly well-sourced for WP:GNG purposes", I ask Bearcat(with tongue firmly in cheek) to refer us to the policy or guideline which requires that articles be spectacularly sourced.
Bearcat's third point (his second paragraph) troubles me the most. Partially because in a sense I agree - we need to be very careful and sensitive here, and take the subject's privacy and dignity into account, and I take Bearcat's comments in that spirit. But, otherwise, I completely disagree. Bearcat's good faith comments would, if adopted, have the (unintended) perverse effect of creating a higher notability threshold for persons with autism or other neurological disorders and disabilities. And that simply can't be right. Even if we presume for a moment that this article is a borderline case (which I don't believe for a minute, for the reasons set out above), as Bearcat seems to be suggesting in his first two points, I cannot agree that we should have a special rule where subjects with a disability or disorder are automatic fails in borderline situations while other subjects are not (and such a special rule is not, as far as I am aware, supported by anything in WP:BLP). We wouldn't be protecting the subject with such an approach - we'd be victimizing him/her.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with the well-known fact that the comments sections on YouTube are infamous cesspools of some really nasty and offensive commentary. If we adopted Bearcat's approach, which would effectively set the bar higher for articles on anyone who has faced vile comments on YouTube because of their physical and mental disorders and disabilities, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, or gender, then we need to immediately revisit tens of thousands or our articles. I don't buy the argument that YouTube comments, or other online commentary, should (or does) dictate (even in part) Wikipedia content or even our notability thresholds. Even if there was some merit to that argument, though, that's something that needs to be discussed on a project-wide basis, resulting in explicit policy or guideline language, not as a one-off in an AfD discussion. If we are going to treat MacDonald differently because he is autistic, then that's a bigger discussion and not one that should be had here.
While I am not entirely sure that there is any proven or meaningful correlation between the volume of inappropriate YouTube/online comments and inappropriate edits on Wikipedia, we do have a simple solution in the event this article attracts more than its share of vandals - indefinite semi-protection, as would be permitted by WP:SEMI. [ETA: As for Bearcat's fear that low page views might result in undiscovered vandalism, speculation as to vandalism is not a legitimate rationale for deletion. Let's try asking the people here, and at Wikiproject Canada, to add this article to their watchlists before we panic.]

For those reasons, I strongly believe that this is a keep. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well put Skeezix1000. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that we have a lot of articles about personalities who got their start on YouTube, the difference between those and this is that those people parlayed their YouTube "fame" into some real-world achievement that passed a subject-specific inclusion rule on its own steam — e.g. getting signed to a record deal, getting cast in conventional film or television roles, etc. We do not have a lot of articles — in fact, we have very close to none at all — about people for whom the YouTube videos themselves are the entire notability claim.

And no, I'm not proposing that we apply some special standard of notability that disallows articles about people who might attract negative commentary; taken to its logical conclusion, what you think I'm suggesting would actually exclude Presidents of the United States and Prime Ministers of Canada. What I'm pointing out, rather, is that the proportion of potential readers of this article whose motivation is vandal-oriented, vs. those whose motivation is more neutral and respectful and "I just want to know more about this guy", is wildly out of whack in this particular instance. Barack Obama, for starters, so deranges people that they'll even disown their own ideas if he signs on to them, and Stephen Harper inspires a lot of harshly negative commentary too — but the audience for our articles about them, the volume of traffic they generate, is broad and diverse enough to control for POV editing or vandalism. But there is very nearly no potential audience for an article about this person outside of that network of nasty YouTube commenters, because very few people outside of the snark cult are actually familiar enough with him to even expect or seek out a Wikipedia article about him in the first place. There's a big difference between "person who attracts negative commentary" — which would bunk somewhere north of 75 per cent of all of our BLPs — and "person for whom the negative commenters are very nearly the entire potential audience for an article about this person" — which is something we need to think about very carefully, especially when you have to rely on sources that don't pass our reliable sourcing standards, like Buzzfeed or community weeklies that aren't widely-distributed enough to confer notability, just to even approach the dozen-plus distinct sources it takes to have any hope of even maybe passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I don't know where you get the idea that "There is very nearly 'no' potential audience for an article about this person outside of that network of nasty YouTube commenters, because they're very nearly the 'only' people on earth who have ever actually heard of this guy or care enough to actually seek out an encyclopedia article about him." The coverage he has received says otherwise. But that's a moot point because Wikipedia guidelines don't care who the audience is for an article. He clearly meets WP:GNG and that's enough. You claim that he doesn't meet WP:GNG but you seem to be applying a higher standard for the sourcing while ignoring coverage in major publications like the CBC, Huffington Post, Toronto Sun and Toronto Star. Those alone are more than enough for inclusion. The fact that he has coverage in a number of smaller markets just shows how widely known he is. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't have enough coverage — if you're making a claim under GNG rather than a subject-specific inclusion guideline, then you need to get into the double digits on the number of distinct, top-class reliable source publishers. Five distinct articles on the CBC, for example, counts as one source for the purposes of passing GNG, because it's the number of distinct publishers rather than the number of distinct citations — so if you've got Star/Sun/CBC, then you've got three sources toward a guideline that requires the number of sources to be in the double digits.

And community weeklies are acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after enough distinct sources of the Star/Sun/CBC class have been added to get the person over GNG, but cannot count toward getting them over GNG — because their coverage focus is too localized to demonstrate that a person belongs in an international encyclopedia. If community weeklies counted toward notability of a BLP, we'd have to start keeping articles about heads of local PTAs and church bake sale committees. So out of all the sources in the article as written, you still only have three notability-conferring sources toward a guideline for which three sources is not enough to pass it. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double-digit, distinct, top-class publishers, really? In eight years here I have never heard of anything that stringent as a requirement to meet the general notability guidelines. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that we can't simply use local publications to establish notability, and understand what you are getting at (it's why we don't have articles on high school football coaches for example). Despite this we still see local sports coverage being used to support articles about minor league baseball players (of which I have argued for deletion at AfD). But to say that full articles in the Sun, Star, CBC (multiple CBC), Huffington Post, and Hustonia (which as a magazine from Houston, I would say is not local to Mr. MacDonald) are not enough because "we need double-digit distinct publishers as per the GNG" is not supported by anything that I have seen around here. Also, despite having videos imbedded in the articles, they are still articles (with a lot more than a sentence worth of text). If you believe that pages about people with a high vandalism-to-page watcher ratio (or anybody in general) should require a higher standard (in the double-digit range of publishers) of coverage, that is fine as your opinion, but it is not written that way in any policy or guideline.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a longstanding policy of AFD, not my own "personal opinion", that GNG is not even approached, let alone passed, until the number of distinct sources is at least into the double digits — and that is counting distinct publishers, not distinct citations to the same publisher. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know where that is written. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, what you're asking for is far beyond the requirements of WP:GNG. If you want to change Wikipedia policies this isn't the place for such a discussion. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for any change of policy — I'm arguing exactly what the policy already is. You cannot meet GNG by including sources like Buzzfeed or the Fayetteville Flyer, and the sources here that do meet the standard necessary to count toward GNG aren't satisfying the volume of sourcing necessary to pass it. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Tchaliburton (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, with all due respect, at this point you kind of appear to be making stuff up. Namely:

" I'm not proposing that we apply some special standard of notability"
You're doing precisely that, although it appears that was not your intent. You basically said that if the accomplishment is of questionable merit and notability is debatable (both of which I dispute), then we should be "exercising extra caution" to protect the subject's privacy and dignity "when we're talking about someone who's autistic", and we should "set the bar for his inclusion here a lot higher". Whether intended or not, that's a double standard for autistic people, and I explained in great detail above why I do not think that's right, it's unsupported by Wikipedia guidelines and policies and has potentially bad ramifications. (Unclear why you are mentioning Obama and Harper as examples, since there is no debate that the U.S. President and Canadian P.M. are notable, negative commentary and membership in a disadvantaged group not even being an issue - as it should be).
"you need to get into the double digits on the number of distinct, top-class reliable source publishers"
Above I asked that people stop making bald assertions as to the minimum threshold of reliable sources and to point us to actual, specific requirements. You have not done that. In contrast, others here have pointed to specific language in WP:GNG to show how its been met.
Please point to the policy, guideline, or discussion that created a consensus for GNG, which establishes "double digits" as the minimum threshold. I've been here for 9 years, and am unaware of such a rule. If it is indeed, as you say, "a longstanding policy of AFD" and not your personal opinion, then you should be able to point us to that policy language that would be determinative here.
And if you want to dismiss Huffington Post, one of whose reporters recently won a Pulitzer, as a reliable source, then please point us to the discussion where that became the consensus for purposes of establishing notability.
"the negative commenters are very nearly the entire potential audience for an article about this person"
This is an amazing statement, because unless you are omniscient you have no way of knowing this to be true. It also seems incorrect based on the facts. He's been covered by Canada's largest newspaper, its public broadcaster, one of its largest newspaper chains, and the Canadian edition of one of the world's largest news sites. The CBC named him one of the 10 top news stories in Nova Scotia in 2013. That's a lot of positive attention. I've explained above why we should not be making content decisions here on Wikipedia because of the notorious assholes on YouTube.
"when you have to rely on sources that don't pass our reliable sourcing standards, like Buzzfeed or community weeklies that aren't widely-distributed enough to confer notability"
You've repeated this assertion (that Buzzfeed and a local paper are being relied upon to establish notability) twice for some reason, and it's patently untrue. Nobody has suggested that the subject is notable by relying on sources like Buzzfeed or the Fayetteville Flyer. Whether intentionally or not, comments such as this are misrepresenting the positions of others here.

As for your comments on YouTube celebrities, I think that you have overstated the typical threshold for inclusion for social media celebrities. In any event, though, this issue we've both been discussing is a bit of a red herring. Our notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable sources, whether the subject has received that coverage for writing poems, perennially losing elections, or being an autistic weather enthusiast. The focus is on the coverage. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep because of the significant coverage in reliable sources, and the excellent analysis of the issues by Skeezix1000. I will put the article on my watch list, and encourage other editors to do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough encyclopaedic material from a brief scan to show that this subject meets general notability guidelines. Article may need some tweaking, but that is not a reason for deletion. Libby norman (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arpan Sharma[edit]

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

A case of WP:BLP1E with the subject having received short-lived, soft coverage in the local media for his language-learning skills at a young age. Since then the two-line biography has languished with no apparent scope for expansion, and occasionally served as a target for kiddish vandalism (typical example). Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried researching the name, and aside from facebook pages and youtube pages of people with similar names, the only information I can find is about him learning 11 languages when 10 years old. Impressive yes, but as Abecedare said, WP:BLP1E says it doesn't make the cut for Wikipedia. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 18:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a lot of coverage when he learned the 10 languages, but absolutely nothing since. The article does appear to meet all three conditions of WP:BLP1E. I am One of Many (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al E Marshall[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician, biography fails general and other relevant notability guidelines. Silverfish8088 (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician spam. apparent AUTObiographical self-promotion COI: note that the original writer has Al Mar in his username, a 1-subject (this one) account. other than that user, the only other non-bot, non-linkfixing editor seems to be the (again, 1-subject --this one) account named (drumroll) AlEMarshall! article is flush-worthy as NN COI BLP AUTO. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't know that I'd be as caustic as the above contribution, but I don't see how this person could meet WP:NM. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No real claim to notability.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arise (musician)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP which fails general notability guidelines as well as musician guidelines. Silverfish8088 (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not "Too soon", IMHO -- after listening to some of the music, I"ll go with "Unlikely ever". But that's not guideline-ish, so I'll also say the article is a wall of unencyclopedic chatter with nothing to back it up. Not notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -The sources are all useless for establishing anything. Between the quality of the music, and the high number of WP:SPAs at the article and at User:Nerdypunkkid/Arise, this smells like PR shenanigans. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Sharma (Market Research Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Fails general notability guidelines. This is not a noteworthy entrepreneur, as evidenced by the lack of coverage. Silverfish8088 (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete-Almost just seems like a "Look at what I can do" article. Wgolf (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of BBC sitcoms[edit]

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

I don't think this page is really necessary when there is already Category:BBC television sitcoms which is complete, unlike this article. I could maybe see it being useful if it was a sortable table with the start date, end date and maybe channel, but in its current state I'm not sure whether it's useful or not. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I have withdrawn this nomination because I realise it was a mistake. I nominated this page because I thought it was unnecessary because there was a more complete category page but I have since learned from WP:CLN that 'should not be considered in conflict with each other'. I apologise for having wasted your time and I promise not to come back. Also, regarding the format I think I will just leave the page as it is and move on. I am currently trying to close the discussion and withdraw the nomination. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy based rationale for deletion. This is a list of notable programmes on one of the most notable TV channels on the planet. Saying that it's better suited to a category fails WP:CLN. If you don't like the format, fix it, don't bring it to AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Perfectly good list topic. --Michig (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should I remove this from AfD then? I'd be willing to change the format myself - I just wanted to check whether it should be deleted because the exact same information is available on the category page except that page is complete. (P.S. Sorry, this is my first time nominating an article, I just thought this article might fall under forks in the policy) Edit: Sorry, now I see that categories and lists 'should not be considered in conflict with each other' from the WP:CLN link Rayna Jaymes (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, am I allowed to change it to a table or should I just leave it as it is and complete the list? Rayna Jaymes (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Anyone can edit. If you think a sortable table would improve the list (which it probably would) and have the patience to do it, then do so. For my part it's a keep per Lugnuts. Keresaspa (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deor (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lustron houses[edit]

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

This list is extremely unuseful for navigational purposes. As its top text notes, thousands of Lustron houses were built (this page collected reports of 2000+ surviving), and pretty much all of them are of equal significance — Lustrons by their nature are pretty much identical, and the fact that some have National Register status doesn't mean that those ones are more significant than the others: it simply means that nobody's gotten around to getting historic site status for the rest. When there are potentially 2,000 entries, a list such as this on a rather unfamiliar topic can make it appear as if these few are the sole survivors; it's not like List of Albanians, which anyone can see to be a small group of significant Albanians, not the entire population. As a result, this page either must provide a small subset of the entire population, or it must provide a massive list, and neither one is useful for navigation. Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a subsection of the existing Lustron houses article.Cramyourspam (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a list of them in that article? It's just a partial text dump from the National Register database, with a few extras thrown in; such a list wouldn't help an article that discusses the nature of such a house. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list should be limited to demonstrably notable houses (NRHP status or otherwise demonstrated to pass GNG), and in that form it seems to me such a list would be valuable for anyone interested in this type of house. If it grows into thousands, we can re-evaluate then, and we have tools for dealing with very long lists. (And our Lustron houses article notes that "many have been modified with additions, remodeled kitchens, vinyl windows, composite roofs, new heating systems, sheet rock interior walls, painted exteriors, and siding", so it's not obvious that all those houses could qualify for NRHP.) Right now there appear to be fewer than a dozen houses with articles in Category:Lustron houses, so the list would be helpful in improving our coverage of the area, and any size problem seems to be only theoretical at this time. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos, consistent with WP:LISTPURP (as an index of articles and as a supplement to the notable topic of Lustron houses) and WP:CLN (as complementary to Category:Lustron houses). The nom is mistaken in thinking the "thousands" of nonnotable Lustron houses have any bearing on whether we should list the ones that are notable. Any concerns about the list confusing readers could easily be cleared up by text along the lines of "X Lustron houses were built and Y are estimated to remain," thus making it clear that the list of notable examples are not all that exist or ever have. The nom states that "the fact that some have National Register status doesn't mean that those ones are more significant than the others." Yes, it does; it means that the NRHP sites are notable. Whether the list could be incorporated into Lustron house is purely a matter of editorial judgment per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT and not a concern for AFD. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Lustron houses and Category:Lustron houses in Alabama, and per the article corresponding with WP:LISTPURP. If the list becomes too long, the article can be WP:SPLIT, creating new articles organized by U.S. state. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael anbar[edit]

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

Lack of notability Owais khursheed (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. --BiH (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax and possible attack page. There is no such Michael Anbar of that description [1], [2], [3]. The citation was spurious,labelled as his biography but linking to a CNN article about Iraq [[4]. Note that there is a Michael Anbar who has written a rather dubious self-published book on "Jewish history", entitled A Biography of an Epoch, but is an entirely different person. Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious HOAX written by a vandalism-only account with liar in it's name. nuke it. and the writer.Cramyourspam (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global World Series[edit]

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

This series never existed, in fact the article seems to be based purely on a speculative press conference from 2010... there has been no reports on this in four years and it doesnt seem likely to become a reality any time soon. Without more sources or content this should be deleted. Spanneraol (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-existing item. well, a one-time idea anyway, but apparently not one that ever came to be. looks like it was mused about "a proposed baseball championship series.... On January 7, 2010, it was announced ... he wants to implement before his retirement in 2012" but apparently the baseball commish' didn't get around to it. in 2010 when the article was made, it was WP:CRYSTAL and now in 2014 it is an unrealized one.Cramyourspam (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculative article based on little more than a meeting. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the delete rationales above. One might be able to find a place to put a sentence or two about the proposal, with appropriate sourcing, in some appropriate place such as Nippon Professional Baseball#Comparison with Major League Baseball, or Professional baseball in Japan#International play. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others. This was an idea that apparently didn't get off the ground, and doesn't have lasting notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above arguments of WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Four years has past and there's still no signs of progress in planning/staging the event. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defense[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete for all the reasons provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia defense and ignored when the article was recreated. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This neologism doesn't appear to meet basic notability requirements. I'm not finding any coverage that mentions the term besides the Signpost article and a short Tech Dirt article. Perhaps someone can dig up more sources and start a legal section on the crowdsourcing article. Useful content could be merged to Floyd Landis doping case, but the inclusion of SCO v. IBM as an example seems to be original research. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a neologism with just two sources actually using the term, both in the context of Floyd Landis. The application of the term to SCO v. IBM seems to be WP:OR.-- danntm ^T _C 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NEO, as it doesn't seem to have caught on after its use in one case. I agree that the SCO v. IBM reference is OR. Lagrange 613 23:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a plausible redirect to Floyd Landis doping case. It is discussed in this. James500 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Regardless of the status of WP:KICK, the article does not meet WP:GNG either. Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marfio Canoletti[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer, does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:KICK and the article has no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:KICK and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hang on, I've got an issue here. Without prejudice to whether the subject meets the GNG, I'm not seeing any official guideline being referenced here. WP:KICK is the project page for the kickboxing Wikiproject. I see that they've got notability "guidelines" listed there, but that's no more than an unofficial essay unless that gets vetted and added to NSPORTS or some other official SNG. What gives? If it hasn't been made official by no community authority greater than the seven listed kickboxing editors, it's invalid to cite as a deletion criteria. Nha Trang 20:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Malawi relations[edit]

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

There is really not much to these relations, no resident ambassadors, no ambassadors, no visits by ministers or leaders. And 2 of the articles cited refer to the accepting of the non resident high commissioner, withe the usual want to cooperate statements. this source makes zero reference to Bangladesh, so it's just barrel scraping LibStar (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the references have significant coverage about the topic so it meets the general notability guidelines. I don't know what made the nom say this source makes zero reference to Bangladesh that has a title "Bangladesh pledges to invest in Malawi". Nomian (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, I meant this source. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in article show that the relationship meets WP:GNG. I am as baffled as Nomian by the statement of nominator about the link.--cyclopia ^speak! 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of drive by tagging by LibStar. His motivation is more about policy than notability. It would have been sweet if one article could summarize all diplomatic relations of Bangladesh. Problem is, same info should be replicated to the other party. It is important to archive bilateral diplomatic relationships between all states. Even if there is a null relationship, an article should state that there is nominal relationship, with no visit and no embassy etc. Question of notability is rather a "Wikipedia bilateral diplomacy articles policy" issue, which should be discussed somewhere in sum, rather than having all these AfDs, case by case. – nafSadh did say 19:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't actually given any reason on how notability is met for this bilateral combination. Not all are notable, hence they are assessed on a case by case basis. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sourcing showing to merit a GNG pass. I wouldn't spend time writing an article on this particular topic, but we all have our esoteric interests. Chances are than any two random countries of any significant size are capable of satisfying GNG for an article such as this. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Kunitskaya[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. No top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter since she has no top tier fights. None of the martial arts claims are supported and the article's sources are just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA, WP:MANOTE, and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWAMBA NC FWAMBA[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. The only claim to notability as far as I can tell is having run in a couple of elections and membership in a student government. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Running as a candidate in an election that the subject didn't win does not satisfy WP:NPOL — and if a person is so poorly covered that we have to claim two competing birthdates which are more than a year apart with no actual source for either, then they pretty clearly don't pass WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently a collection of claims that do not show that the subject meets the standard of WP:NPOL, and a collection of links, without any apparent effort on the part of the creating editor to align the two. Readers should not need to try to do so. Likely WP:SPIP. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Bazj (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Korteweg[edit]

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

One of many "x was a philatelist who signed the Roll of Distinguished Philatelists" articles. It would seem that their notability is limited to being a redlink in the roll's article, and their sole reference is being listed at the Roll of Distinguished Philatelists Trust. I raise this discussion as a representative for the whole class created en masse. Bazj (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - The article has been improved and is no longer representative of the many stubs created. While I'm glad that the article has been improved it's regrettable that a discussion of the many stubs is no longer possible. I don't intend chasing them all AfD by AfD. Bazj (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment further later, but my initial thoughts are that simply being on the Roll is enough. It's the premier award internationally in philately and you don't get on it unless you have already won gold medals from exhibiting internationally, written significant books etc. I grant you the articles are the stubyist of stubs but whenever one has been challenged before they have always proved highly expandable and usually with multiple points of notability. Check out my Did You Knows for evidence. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately#AfD. Bazj (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RDP. Costerus Medal. Over 2000 articles on Dutch philately. Wrote some of the standard works on Dutch marcophily. I am sure there is more too for Dutch readers. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Stamp collecting is the world's biggest hobby, so these people are notable for being on the RDP alone. Plus this chap has done other notable stuff anyway. Edwardx (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Kohli[edit]

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

Actor who has had minor roles in two films. I can't find sources that indicate that he meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. bonadea contributions talk 14:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon. Wgolf (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be too soon and the contributor's username and the license used for the image of infbox indicated the conflict of interest. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Golden Gate Bridge. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Golden Gate Bridge deer crossing[edit]

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

Prod contested - "highly notable, covered by sources national and international" I disagree. This is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. A bunch of deer crossed Golden Gate bridge and made the news, which is why there are a number of links to newspapers. However I don't believe that this event has lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No demonstration of lasting significance or impact is presented, and I can neither find nor reasonably anticipate anything. The incident might (or might not) warrant brief mention in the main Golden Gate Bridge article, although there's currently nothing there about the bridge's impact on animals (not even genius apes). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Golden Gate Bridge, this is a wonderful, and completely nonnotable story to have an article. It barely merits mention at the bridge article, but ill give it that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second look I note that we do have a separate article for Golden Gate Bridge in popular culture, and maybe this story (and the flurry of attention it received) might belong there? --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree, User:Arxiloxos. That's probably the best option. --Anupam^Talk 00:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree... this is a news story about the bridge, not a reference to the bridge in popular culture. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. All of the sources were released on or the day after this event, and there has not been any lasting impact. I am hesitate to merge this, as animal caused traffic jams are really common and including it in an article would likely be giving undue weight to this event. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A momentous, history-changing event like this does not occur everyday. Alex (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and such. No indication of lasting notability. Worth an extremely brief mention at the bridge's article, if even that. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a tough decision, especially because of User:Alexsautographs' comment. However, in reality, this is a sensational local news story that does not pass WP:N for this encyclopedia. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local traffic news fluff, fails WP:EVENT as coverage ceased a couple of days after it happened. Maybe it'll end up as a footnote to some article about urbanization encroaching on nature. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Brown (Beckie0)[edit]

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

Having several views/subscribers on YouTube is not a good claim to notability. Not enough coverage in reliable sources, though if there are any, I may have missed them given that there is another person with the same name. Possible COI as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Deletion Do not delete Article due to outside sources that state that is she an actress. However, the Fan base commentary should be deleted. Arman Cagle^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} 12:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable youtube speaker. self-promotional autobiography suspected since article subject, Rebecca Brown (Beckie0) is identified in the article and title as going by the name BeckieO ("becky oh") and the original writer is user: Beckieoh. The user has only written about BeckieO/Rebecca Brown and also about trichotillomaniahe (nervous hair-pulling), which is the subject BeckieO vlogs about. this self-promotion reads like an advert. no sources except for her own youtubes. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 not notable, only has self-published sources. Bazj (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Bazj. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 as there is no assertion of notability and no independent sources.-- danntm ^T _C 04:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs are useless. Szzuk (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and lacks independent sources.Could be deleted under A7 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar prime number[edit]

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

Unrelated to star primes. Fails Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), WP:MADEUP. Only reference is to a preprint selfpublished (see [5]) by Heitor Baldo four days before article was created by User:Heitorb. External link is to a page by Baldo. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 3-page preprint cited claims that the "stellar primes" are a new class, and was written in April 2014. There is no evidence this is regarded as significant by anyone but the author. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My notability threshold is low for pieces of mathematical research — I would like to see published research on the topic from multiple independent research groups — but this doesn't even meet that standard. There is only one source and it's not reliably published. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Performing a few examples quickly reveals non-primes. There is even a non-prime in one of the sets. The "pre-print" article is nothing but unpublishable conjectures, possibly to support the hoax. I am One of Many (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a hoax. The listing of 27 instead of 29 in 3-stellar primes is probably just a typo. The preprint lists 29, and later says "the name stellar prime number was choosen because we can write them as illustrate the figure below". Amateur mathematicians invent names for prime forms all the time. The preprint author does not pretend it's an existing name, and the Wikipedia author is probably just the COI preprint author trying to get more attention for their non-notable work. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 + 5 + 7 + 11 + 29 = 55 I am One of Many (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you posted that. Did you call it a hoax because you think the author claims the sum is always a prime? He made no such claim. The preprint for example says "3+5+7=15, that isn't prime". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Hoaxes[edit]

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

Kind of weird - it is a bit like listcruff (about Canadian hoaxes, obviously), but it tries to wrap in some weird WP:OR about why Canada is liable to hoaxes because there is nothing better to do up there (probably true). I mulled trying to save it because it gets better lower down, but ultimately, unless there is a serious scientific paper about Canadian propensity for hoaxes, it will never be better that just listcruff. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with --something. the article so far is a big bunch of WP:OR. unsourced speculative bits like "The geography of Canada encourages people to defraud others. From the vast ice fields in the north and all the mountains and wildlife, Canada is a broad area full of mystery and the unknown. For that reason it is very easy for residents or outsiders to make up myths to defraud the public." reek of original research. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was initially thinking of a selective merge to List of hoaxes, but none of the hoaxes given in the article have any iota of notability. Also full of OR. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be synthesis, and inadequate sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. While it's true that Canada has a lot of sparsely-populated wilderness, for one thing, the vast majority of Canadian people actually do live in real honest-to-goodness towns and cities where there's actually real honest-to-goodness stuff to do besides sitting around making shit up for kicks — so we'd need real reliable sourcing to verify the claim that Canada is prone to an unusually large number of hoaxes, rather than relying on an unsourced assertion that smacks of POV theorizing. And I doubly love the fact that the creator isn't even accurately reading the few sources they are citing — the "Coleman Frog", according to the source, was found in 1885 in a "Killarney Lake" near Fredericton, New Brunswick, but the creator wrongly placed the discovery in Killarney Lakelands and Headwaters Provincial Park — which is in Ontario, not New Brunswick, and didn't exist until 2006. Any of these three items might qualify for a standalone article, if they can be properly sourced — but wrapping them up into a POV essay about a purported tendency to hoaxery as some kind of uniquely Canadian phenomenon (as if every populated country on earth didn't also have dozens or hundreds of its own hoaxes and folklore items too) isn't the way to get them in here. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Kelly[edit]

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

Her notability is not made clear, the page refers largely to her own own homepage (WP:NPOV issue), the awards appear to be obscure and the only interview cited is with a local Birmingham newspaper. Her international appearances are largely supporting or part of a chorus. She has made no recordings. I searched for further interviews and articles without success and can't find anything that indicates a national profile. Karst (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for Now~~ Keep: Well, she is marginal as far as refs are concerned, that is certain. But people of talent have emerged from English Touring Opera and she does have a record there and in other areas too. I'd say let this stand for now - and monitor it in 6 months to see if anyone has added stuff of value. It's on my watchlist. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research and adding additional sources, I'm in favour of keeping. OK, she's still in the process of developing a career, but we have more info on her than on some other rather marginal characters for whom there are only stubs...! Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Delete~~ [See my comment below] She passes none of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG. Yes, some singers have emerged from ETO to go on to significant careers, but this singer has not done so yet, although she is obviously talented. When she passes the criteria, she should have an article—not before. The place to wait for that is as a draft in user or draft space, not an article in main space. She has not sung a single leading role with a single major opera company. Even if you look at her roles with the second tier company, English Touring Opera, they are invariably minor ones. You can see that from the press section on her own website [6]. She has no significant concert career, i.e. as a soloist with leading orchestras in major concert halls. She has no recordings, even in minor roles. She has won no significant awards or placed in any major singing competition. The list of roles/operas/concerts on her website (from which the article is very heavily paraphrased) is very vague, probably intentionally so, as on doing a bit of research, the potentially leading roles pertain to youth opera and student productions. She covered the role of Despina (arguably her only leading role with ETO) but only performed it at the dress rehearsal when the scheduled singer was ill. See the ETO press office "Please note that Paula Sides, singing the role of Despina in ETO’s tour of Così fan tutte, was unwell during the dress rehearsal, when these photos were taken, so Abigail Kelly, covering the role of Despina, appears in these shots instead of Paula." The concerts are with local choral groups, very minor local "festivals", schools outreach, etc. After searching for more coverage which would qualify the subject for WP:GNG, I cannot find anything apart from the "local girl makes good" article in the Birmingham Post and this very similar article in the Jamaica Gleaner from four years ago. Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to a "weak keep" following the sources found by Qwfp. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BASIC due to significant coverage in the following independent reliable sources: Birmingham Mail in 2009 [7], The Gleaner (Jamaica) in 2010 [8], The Voice (newspaper) in 2012 [9], the Birmingham Post in both 2013 [10] and 2014 [11]. Qwfp (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Birmingham Post is a significant, reputable, regional newspaper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Colbert[edit]

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

Minimally sourced (sole reliable source is a blurb) WP:BLP of a person notable only as a former staffer in a mayor's office, and as a withdrawn candidate for a political party's nomination in a provincial election. These are not claims of notability that get a person over WP:NPOL, so his hope of qualifying for inclusion would rest on passing WP:GNG — but that doesn't happen either, as I just did a ProQuest check and found not even a single source any more substantive than that blurb. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not notable; reads like a political candidate flyer. Kierzek (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician spam. four years ago was on the staff of the ottowa mayor? not notable. intended to run for an office but then did not? not-notable. spent three years as editor of the "Colbert Report Blog"? well, that's just his own (Brent Colbert's) own blog! it is NOT (as one might at first think) a blog related to the actually-famous Colbert Report. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to indicate subject meets WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C. Clark Kissinger[edit]

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

Notability, no sources, self-research, seems to have been a stub article for ten years now. Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No notability established. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom not fails WP:GNG and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a good-sized pile of citations, and there are lots more out there if these are for some reason inadequate. -- Visviva (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly has enough WP:RSs to meet both WP:GNG and WP:BIO now. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep a leader of SDS for a year when the organization was at an important part of it's history, visiting communist china during the cultural revolution --the guy seems to have an interesting if minor role in US communist political history. there are sources. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AS above- Moudul hasan (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Eeesh. Learn some history, why doncha? This chap was the National Secretary of SDS in the Sixties? There has to be half a hundred good articles about him back in that day, and plainly the nom didn't give more than a passing thought to WP:BEFORE. (For one thing, I don't figure it occurred to the nom to use "Clark Kissinger" instead of "C. Clark Kissinger" as a search term, if he bothered at all: that came up with three dozen newspaper cites alone.) Nha Trang 20:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. To be relisted in smaller bundles. Kingjeff (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Victoria Highlanders season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS Kingjeff (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:NSEASONS. In addition, many of these articles are seriously incomplete, lacking sources, and lacking proper sources.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and relist, either individually or in small batches of 5, as such a large WP:BUNDLE is simply not effective for constructive discussion or being able to effectively review the articles for notability. Giant Snowman 14:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no middle ground here. They either all get kept or all get deleted. These articles are all in the same category. Kingjeff (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you've checked that all 61 topics fail WP:GNG? Bollocks. Giant Snowman 18:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they all fail. There is no hope for any of these articles. Kingjeff (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more reasons why they all should be deleted, check WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kingjeff (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and relist as per User:GiantSnowman. Also note that most of these pages haven't been tagged as being part of an AFD, nor has there been any attemp to notify the article creators; while the latter is optional, the former isn't. Nfitz (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Solomonick[edit]

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

Waiting with an academic notability tag for four years; I think it's time we discussed this BLP on the basis of the subject's notability. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see 10 hits on Scholar; an entry at ru: Соломоник, Абрам Бенцианович with incoming Main links; and several Google books (not Wikipedia sourced). He should have Israeli articles in Hebrew from the Ministry of Education. He certainly looks notable to me.
SBaker43 (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and get someone to add sources in Hebrew or Russian. Let's not be so English language-centric. people can become well-known in other languages, and it is useful for monolingual Anglophones to be able to check them out on Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As per SBaker43 and ShulMaven.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's House[edit]

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

Zero secondary coverage; fails WP:NB. ISBN number inaccurate or not yet registered (or I can't find it). Blackguard 06:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This title is by one of the "big 6" publishing houses and has been issued an ISBN. Moreover, This page cannot be considered for deletion because it discusses an unpublished book unless Stephen King's yet-to-be-released Finders Keepers (2015) (it has been uncontested since June) and Revival pages, William Gibson's unpublished The Peripheral page, and Douglas Preston's unpublished Blue Labyrinth page are removed as well. Any administrative inconstancy will not only be placed on admin boards for admin privilege revocation consideration, but user names will be recorded from the history and become the subject of an upcoming work on Wikipedian hypocrisy, protocol inconsistency, and informative unreliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldoror2 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax Random house has only one author by the name of Frank Thomas and he is an economist. No references anywhere. I believe this is a hoax for Maldoror2 to prove some point as they have had several book articles of his come up for AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:PROF/WP:GNG. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis C. Ajonuma[edit]

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

there is an assertion of notability, but there are few sources, and it's impossible to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bi Ohc ^¡digame! 07:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage. All the references are his publications. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 06:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article seems to be written with good intentions.. But the references makes it hard to pass notability criteria.. ARK (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if it fails notability criteria it should be deleted. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete the relevant criterion is WP:PROF, and the references being their individuals own publications is not ann argumeny against notability ,since the criterion is being an authority in their subject, and this is proven by citations to their work, which is how scientists measure such things. Unfortunately, h=12, and the field is one where very much higher citation counts are usual for notable individuals. there is only one highly cited paper (70 cites), and the individual is not a principal author. Science is international, and therefore the standard for notability as an authority under WP:PROF is an international standard, and we do not judge by whether the person might be a relatively important authority in their particular country (this is different from some other fields of endeavor, or some of the other possible factors in WP:PROF or the GNG. I dont't thing this meets the expected level. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all - the consensus is that the articles fail WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 Dynamo Dresden season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS. Kingjeff (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – existing precedent that this type of article is not acceptable unless the WP:GNG is clearly shown to have been met. C 679 16:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex S. Johnson[edit]

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

Interesting. I just semi-protected this from serial blanking, then removed a section or two for being fluffy and unverified, to discover that there actually isn't anything here that makes me thing this person passes the GNG or the AUTHOR guideline. He wrote some short stories and a thesis--but that is not enough to be notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made this for a former boyfriend. None of it is true. That is why I was trying to take it down. It is totally false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1F06:D9C:69FA:C6:D84C:42D9 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's exciting. Anyway, there's little to do but wait this out, since the information doesn't seem to be totally made up. You could nominate it for deletion yourself, but only if you log in to the account that created it. Tell you what, there's one other option--there isn't much of a claim to notability anyway, so speedy deletion is an option. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the publications are in worldcat, but I wouldnt have expected they were. Assuming alll of it is actually true, he is not notable, so I don;tthink there's any problem deleting it. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing available to establish notability. I read an interview with him on a blog, which somewhat supports the IP's claim of making at least some of this up. I am One of Many (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5, G4, A7... take your pick. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khursheed Khan[edit]

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

An actor with an amazing one film! Way too soon if ever. Wgolf (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I keep on messing up on putting it on here, but look: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khursheed Khan (Co editor) Wgolf (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gasaneri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page should be deleted because In Quba District doesn't have village Gasaneri Nəcməddin Kəbirli (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have transcluded this discussion to the log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 25. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As the town/village is verified by the references within the article and typically any and all locations with populations are considered notable, keep. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete (see below)Keep but expand. Gasaneri exists in the claimed location, and this is demonstrated by the reliable sources. As cities and towns are generally presumed to be notable, I do not see a reason to delete this article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article only cites a single source, [12] - which tells us that this is a 'populated place'. A further search (enter 'Gasaneri' in the name field here [13]} tells us it is in Quba, Azerbaijan, and confirms the coordinates given in the article - but again describes it as a 'populated place'. Accordingly, we have no source for the assertion that it is a village. As I understand from Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Geographic regions, areas and places, we only presume confer automatic notability on "Populated, legally-recognized places". We have no evidence that the place is "legally-recognized", and accordingly, we have to assume that it comes under "Populated places without legal recognition" - which are considered "a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". I cannot see how a supposed 'populated place' in Azerbaijan sourced only to a database in the United States can be considered notable without further evidence. Evidence which actually demonstrates that it exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The geonames sources also lists Quba, the district capitol as a "populated place" [14]. The second source you cited lists every non-capitol city as a "populated place". The term is used to designate between natural features such as mountains and streams, capitols and other populated places, not to designate the official legal designation of those populated places. This is not proof that Gasaneri is not a legally recognized entity. To the contrary, the second source lists Gasaneri as the "approved" name of the populated place. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. government has no jurisdiction whatsoever in Azerbaijan, and accordingly is in no position to decide what is or isn't legally recognised. In any case, having conducted a search (admittedly limited by my complete lack of any understanding of the Azerbaijani language) I have found no evidence whatsoever that this 'populated place' exists anywhere other than on the U.S. database, and in data clearly derived from it. Lacking evidence that this hypothetical 'populated place' has any legal recognition, and indeed lacking any evidence that it has a meaningful existence, I have to suggest that the article must be deleted, as entirely lacking evidence for notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking further, I note that the source cited (the GeoNames database) permits user edits, [15] and accordingly, per WP:USERGENERATED isn't a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have raised the question of the reliability of the source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GeoNames. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any reliable sources that exist for the article subject, they are going to be in the Azerbaijani language. However, the article lacks these sources and the only English sources still standing just notes that a foreign government recognizes that a populated place called Gasaneri exists without giving even the most basic background information about this populated place. As this article would be incredibly easy to rewrite if reliable sources are ever found and due to the policy concerns, I'm changing my vote to a delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What's at the coordinates given in the article is Zərqava, Quba, not (apparently, unless Gasaneri is a older—perhaps Russian?—name for the village) Gasaneri. Open Street Map, being a user-created service, is not, I know, a reliable source, but it does seem to label every damn hamlet in Quba Rayon; and in going over the rayon there, I can't find anything remotely resembling "Gasaneri". In my experience, the CIA's GeoNet database is not a reliable source (frequently inaccurate, outdated, and/or unverifiable elsewhere—see this discussion), so this article fails WP:V unless someone can turn up a better source. Deor (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Deor. If we can't even verify what the settlement at that location is called beyond a reasonable doubt, then we shouldn't have an article, per WP:V. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Does this help? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most of those online databases of place names just copy from each other (or from Wikipedia), so that once a "ghost" place gets into GeoNet or Fallingrain or a similar site, it immediately pops up everywhere on the Web. Many of the semi-automatically created geographic substubs on Wikipedia were created on the basis of such databases, with no other sourcing at all, and the detailed reliability of the databases is open to question, to say the least. In these cases, I am not willing to accept the verifiability of the articles unless some sort of independent sourcing can be found. Some times it can (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Əngəlan for one Azerbaijan example), and sometimes it can't (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsaxkadzor for another). Deor (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I love AfDs like this because I love to see how we cover localities in more "obscure" places. We've done good work above to try to save a stub created in good faith with very little effort years ago. Short of getting local census information showing every populated place in Quba District (Azerbaijan), we need to delete this. I would guess these templates for every district in the country contain other cases like this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: First Hello to everyone. I am new in English wikipedia and I want to change some untruthful information about Azerbaijan. I looked to every Azerbaijanis district and there are a lot of extra places and there are also a lot of other problems such as wrong name, history, population and so on. There was someone wrote that Gasaneri is Russian name but it is not. Toponim is Azerbaijani Turkic but this place is cancelled like a lot of other places. I will find the govermental document about places in Azerbaijan, you can look it and can help me to delete other pages too. Also there is one problem for example some website mentioned this sources and they make forecast I think it affects to your opinion but they are using USA sources like GEONames which is not true always. Good luck.--Nəcməddin Kəbirli (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete after two relistings. Chinese sources indicate band satisfies WP:MUSICBIO Philg88 ^♦talk 06:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supper Moment[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[16]WP:MUSICBIO#8--114.81.255.37 (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the Supper Moment page. Supper Moment has twice topped major charts in Hong Kong. 無盡 topped the 903 chart in week 38 of 2013, and 世界變了樣 topped the RTHK chart in week 52 of 2013. There are a few English-language independent reviews of Supper Moment, for example here and here, one from TimeOut HK. Kucing10 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easton Mountain[edit]

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

NN resort. A mere mention in a guide book is not the significant coverage in secondary sources required to establish notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I'm not finding anything in the media. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable resort's advert. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 21:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chewy: Esc from F5[edit]

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

video game that has not garnered significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The MobyGames page linked as a source in the article ([17]) contains 3 German game magazine review scores (PC Games, PowerPlay and PC Gamer), here is a scan of one of them on another site: [18]. As with all games of this age, the reviews are mainly from magazines not the internet and they are rarely easily accessable, it doesn't mean that they're not there though. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. MarvellousMeatpuppet pretty much said it all.--Coin945 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Game has a variety of reviews means its upto some extent notable.. ARK (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 21:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ark of Time[edit]

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

Nothing indicating that this video game achieved substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple magazine reviews listed on Mobygames ([19]). As a non-budget console game this will have been reviewed in multiple PlayStation magazines as well. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. MarvellousMeatpuppet pretty much said it all.--Coin945 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bargon Attack[edit]

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

No indication that this video game has garnered significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of magazine reviews listed on Mobygames ([20]). MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. MarvellousMeatpuppet pretty much said it all.--Coin945 (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)There are better reasons to want to keep this.[reply]
Delete. I appreciate the bar is pretty damn low for computer games, but I just cannot see how this in any way meets any kind of notability criteria for computer games. Article does not assert any kind of notability.--Legis (talk - contribs) 13:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Legis: The article already includes information from 4 critical reviews found on Mpbygames (Joystick (French), Génération 4, Joker Verlag präsentiert: Sonderheft, and Power Play) so your assertion is a little confusing. --Coin945 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A little more sluething has uncovered this review of the game in a Print magazine called " Amiga Joker", a little bit of info about the development, a review in Obligement, and this book that describes the game as "especially notable".--Coin945 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the game was originally released in Spanish/French so chances are there will be few English sources.--Coin945 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator: Firstly, game is old so most reviews will be in hard-to-find print media (common for games from this era). Secondly, game was released in France/Spain so understandably few English sources exist. Thirdly, even the few sources currently in the article demonstrate the game's notability.--Coin945 (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:VG/S, Mobygames is not a reliable reference, thus I have removed those references from the article. I don't have a view either way on the article's AfD. However, that evil Coin945 thinking 1992 games are old is a low blow. You young whippersnapper, stay off my monitor while I play my original Atari 2600 that I got for Christmas of 1978. Old, Pfft. :) Bgwhite (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I didn't mean to offend. I meant "old" in the the context of "pre-internet", as that means the vast majority of its sources will only appear in print magazines as opposed to, say, Metacritics. I also put back the review excerpts located at Mobygames. The reviews themselves are notable and I only linked to Mobygames as I don't have access to those print magazine, and the next best thing is using this site that has some information about them.--Coin945 (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not a super strong case, but it has the requisite three reviews: Power Play, Amiga Joker, Joystick. Realistically, these types of games would be best explored in a List of Coktel Vision games fashion until they need to be spun out summary style. Also realistically, I wish those who edit in this space would stop using MobyGames as anything more than an initial index (it is not reliable and should not be used to source "X gave it 60%" [additionally, this phrase means nothing] and so on). Also, for what it's worth, this article had an astronomically low view count prior to this AfD. We're not doing anyone any favors by creating dedicated articles in this fashion. czar ♔ 00:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm withdrawing the afd on the basis of evidence presented. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing Students Without Borders[edit]

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

No substantial independent sources: all are either from them or from their universities, or routine notices DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More external sourcing could usefully be added, but the organization seems notable (and worthy).

Some sourcing in the article uses UVA news items, e.g. this link to a UVA newsletter, but this sourcing is legitimate.
National recognition of the program is covered in this link to a UVA newsletter. It's on how UVA got recognized by the Corporation for National and Community Service in 2009: it "honored the University of Virginia today, naming the school to the President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll for exemplary service efforts and service to America's communities. / Launched in 2006, the Community Service Honor Roll is the highest federal recognition that a school can achieve for its commitment to service learning and civic engagement. Honorees for the award were chosen based on a series of factors, including scope and innovation of service projects, percentage of student participation in service activities, incentives for service and service-learning course offerings. / ... Several volunteer programs were specifically noted: ... • The University of Virginia chapter of Nursing Students Without Borders, founded at U.Va. in 1999, has worked for eight years to build a new Red Cross clinic in San Sebastian, El Salvador, and just broke ground a few months ago. While ..." The news article is from UVA, but I believe the assertion that the award explicitly noted the Nursing without Borders.
Google scholar search link provided above links to a number of academic articles, including "Nursing Students without Borders", by Kuczkowski, Bridget; DeLisser, Rosalind; Maushammer, Ann; Miller, Esther; Walden, Matthew, in Nursing and Health Care Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 3 , May 2001. No doubt the authors have some affiliation, but as professionals, in a peer-reviewed journal, this is significant coverage. And more academic article mentions there too.
covered, favorably, in books/directories about student nursing opportunities, e.g. this one
an independent news article about the evacuation of students present at an earthquake, which was nonetheless coverage of the organization, of interest because they were there as part of that organization

It seems pretty clearly interesting and hence there will be more coverage available, just not found and added to the article. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --do ncr am 21:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With topics like this any extended coverage is often in publications where we may question the level of independence. For general press coverage there needs to be a scandal or a disaster (or a celebrity ambassador) for the hacks to start writing. However, in this case the nurses have been lucky. There has indeed been a disaster, as Doncram has discovered, and Associated Press dutifully wrote about it and the nurses. Topics like this are encyclopedic and if the notability guidelines say they are not then the guidelines are wrong. Thincat (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan horse gallery[edit]

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

No indication that this art is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, can't see any evidence whatsoever of any secondary coverage about it. Sionk (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Kierzek (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (very weakly) possibly an art historical "first" and could also be of interest as hacker trivia, but the article currently lacks non-COI sources. needs to be expanded and to have proper RS. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squaremouth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

What is the encyclopedic reason of this article? Simple Autopromotion.

Comment - I completed the AfD for IP 193.234.224.142. Ansh666 18:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I think the same way; this article is self-referential and self-promotional. The essence of this article is not encyclopedic. What is reason and purpose of this article? This company is known in how many countries? How many offices are there around the world? How many people work in these offices? Why does Wikipedia-English have so many American companies who want to self-label themselves as “notable”? Should we not think more globalized? Is USA the only country where the English language is spoken? What should we think about other companies that are better known in other continents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.185.183.119 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to violate WP:PROMOTION, as there is little content apart from the very basic history of the company and what services they offer. -- Jkudlick (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interlink Publishing[edit]

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

Interlink Publishing appears to fail the WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Though I did find a couple three sources about various books or book series they have published, I failed to find any significant coverage of the company itself in third-party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of a book is coverage of those responsible for it, including the publisher. If they have had three book reviews of reasonable length, they satisfy GNG and possibly LISTN. James500 (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have a detailed article, which clearly is about the company qua the company, in a book published by the American Library Association. A book that comes up almost immediately in GBooks and is actually cited in our article. James500 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources already cited in our article satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Though the information on the company’s profile is extremely low keyed that gives the impression of non-notability. However, when I look to Google Scholar I see evidence of a company that is publishing a number of author(s) works that are cited extensively which would lend itself to the publishing house to be notable under its “products and/or services” ShoesssS ^Talk 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG needs to be rewritten to stop people from arguing that no matter how much coverage there is, it isn't significant. James500 (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Canadian Young Leaders Conference[edit]

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

Article, created by the organization itself (see edit history) and thus a conflict of interest violation, about an annual conference. Cited exclusively to the organization's own website, an invalid primary source, and citing not a whit of reliable source coverage to get it over WP:ORG or WP:EVENT. Delete unless enough real sourcing can be found to salvage this with. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student organization conference. article written by (now-blocked) 1-subject (this organization) account with self-complimentary phrases like "Delegates from the 2013 JCYLC show tremendous potential and promise for growing into strong and thriving leaders in their communities" --ADVERT, COI, NN. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semaphora[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate that this short-lived defunct company was notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to fail WP:ORGDEPTH with the only citation of the main product appearing at http://www.developerfusion.com/thread/26992/adding-object-shutdown/ . Propose deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsmith87 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about a non-notable defunct software company which existed for three years Cramyourspam (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NPASR. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 01:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incobrasa Industries[edit]

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

Appears to fail the WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I failed to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources other than this article and this article, which by themselves are not enough to prove notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Google book search lists over 129 entries for the company... Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: In the two pages of results I see nearly all trivial coverage, let alone significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Long[edit]

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

Seems a completely non-notable entity. The one solid reference, from the Phoenix New Times, is devoted solely to how he's never done anything. Onel5969 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local musician spam Cramyourspam (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Per WP:TNT and on the understanding that a new (and better) article will be created at "Royal etiquette". Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Etiquette[edit]

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

Strange one, this. I can't actually see anything much about Royal Etiquette in this article that isn't already covered in the articles on other subjects. I'm sure the subject of royal etiquette is encyclopaedic as there are so many codes of conduct and rules involving interactions with royalty, but this article isn't really giving us what the title promises. At the end of the day, surely it's just a rather roundabout way of promoting Princess Katarina's etiquette lessons? Mabalu (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the part advertising Katarina's services per Wikipedia:Spam. DrKiernan (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs a clean up but sources provided by books and newspaper searches show the topic is clearly notable enough to have an article. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - But DOES the article currently up address the subject it purports to cover? IMO what we currently have needs to be blown up and started over again. Mabalu (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the nominator acknowledges, this is a notable subject. But the article bascically needs to be started again from scratch. I'd be okay with a WP:BLOWITUP deletion but I don't think this is an article the encyclopaedia should be without (though I'm not sure why the second word in the title is capitalised). There would need to be a commitment that this is actually going to be rewritten because a terrible article is better than nothing at all in this instance. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having had another look, I think we should delete this in favour of an entirely new article at Royal etiquette which actually covers the subject of "royal etiquette" (and not just European royal etiquette; Chinese imperial etiquette being incredibly complex, for example). Thoughts Mabalu, Carlossuarez46, Dcfc1988? St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - An article on royal etiquette does need writing but I don't feel confident enough to take it on as it's a bit outside my comfort zone, and every country with a royal/imperial family has their own incredibly detailed, complex rules. There's also a question of whether royal etiquette should pertain to royalty's interactions, or if this refers to how the non-royal should behave around royalty. Perhaps members from Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility would be interested to take it on? Mabalu (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be both and I would be happy to make a start. You'd obviously be free to help but I'm not looking to dump this on someone; it's an area where I have some interest and I feel confident I could put together at least a general framework. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NPASR (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 01:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slurrup[edit]

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

Declined Prod. Per WP:Crystal. There are no independent reliable sources to support this unreleased album's notability. Of the four references currently in the article the first is an interview with the artist (primary source), the second only mentions its planned release in passing and the third doesn't mention it at all (those three are also blogs so their reliably may be questionable), the fourth is another interview (again primary source). • Sarahj2017 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uncut magazine is a secondary, independent, and reliable source that is notable for being one of the largest active music magazines in the UK. Uncut magazine operates in print and digital form and is not an unreliable blog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncut_%28magazine%29. The Uncut source does not cite an interview with the artist and is mentioned as an entry in the editor's personal blog from the magazine's main official website. The Uncut source also reviews a song from the album Slurrup, "One Way Out". The author of the article is the editor of Uncut Magazine.Minkthink (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (CT)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Alkali Creek (1865)[edit]

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

This "battle of alkali creek" seems to be the invented name for a minor skirmish during a larger campaign. It was, contrary to what the infobox suggests, not a battle between 1,500 soldiers and civilians on one side, and 300 warriors on the other side; it was a group of Native Americans stealing the horses, a small group of soldiers (7) following them, and 3 of those 7 being killed. Another group of 3 soldiesr saw 2 of them being killed, and so on. This is not a "battle", this is a series of incidents, happening all the time during war and hardly worthy of being noted down, hence the lack of sources about it (the only source being a local history book which has reprinted soldiers' diaries). As the article Powder River Expedition (1865) makes clear, there were similar skirmishes the next day, again with a few casulaties, and this continued over the next week. Fram (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Powder River Expedition (1865). It's not that these engagements didn't occur. Its a question of whether or not there's sufficient sourcing and content to warrant a separate article. I don't think this represents WP:OR. The engagement is already covered in the primary article, so a merge seems the right answer (although the tangible result is the same). --Mike Cline (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention of this "battle" anywhere other than in Wikipedia, the proverbial "forest". Get rid of this fallen "tree" because nobody heard (of) it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Powder River Expedition (1865). Nothing in the nomination suggests that the content doesn't belong there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point? The redirect will get zero real hits, since it is an invented name. Merging it? The information is already there, under the same invented name by the same editor. So even keeping this for attribution reasons isn't necessary, it is already attributed to him or her. Fram (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the information need not be merged. Zero secondary sources appear to cover this topic; it's just the primary sources such as diaries. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming nominator is correct that no sources use this term. Why do people need to invent battles when there are so many without articles? —innotata 07:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ICBRR[edit]

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

No claim to notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Powder River Expedition (1865). There is no clear consensus here to merge or delete and given the multiple relistings, I don't expect any more comments to com in. Therefore I am redirecting this to Powder River Expedition (1865). Any content worth merging there is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Little Powder River[edit]

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

A "battle" that hasn't received any attention from reliable sources at all. Either it is known under another name, or it normally not named at all as it was an unimportant skirmish among many others. No Google Books sources [21], not even for the combination of the river and the date[22].

The editor of the article seems intent on using Wikipedia as a first publisher of his research (see his other deleted articles and articles at AfD), but that is explicitly not what Wikipedia is intended for. Fram (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This engagement is mentioned on page 215 of Grinnell, George Bird (1915). "The Powder River Expedition of 1865". The Fighting Cheyennes (Reprint 1955 by University of Oklahoma Press ed.). Charles Scribner & Sons.. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me as if that source is discussing the Battle of Dry Creek (1865) of 8 september, not the one up for deletion of two days later. The source[23] explicitly mentions 8 September, and "3000 Sioux", which matches the 2,000 to 4,000 mentioned in the Dry Creek article, but not the 100-300 mentioned in the Little Powder River article. Fram (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree -Mike Cline (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Powder River Expedition (1865). It's not that these engagements didn't occur. Its a question of whether or not there's sufficient sourcing and content to warrant a separate article. I don't think this represents WP:OR. The engagement is already covered in the primary article, so a merge seems the right answer (although the tangible result is the same). --Mike Cline (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication that I can find that anybody recorded this as a "battle". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kivatinos[edit]

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

Non-notable person, unreliable references (second is a PR factory). This was a pair of articles created by a promotionally-named user (deleted via AfD). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Nusimow. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is correct. Also, references are formatted with italicized wording Technology Review, falsely implying coverage in a highly notable and reliable magazine published by MIT since 1899. I see no real evidence that this person is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessperson. his company is under AfD though it miiight be barely sort of barely able to pass NOTE. barely. no need for a seperate article about the company leader. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental pageant[edit]

AfDs for this topic:

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

Non-notable contest. No independent sources in many years and nothing obvious in google. Over the four winners with articles, only Hannelly Quintero is clearly sufficiently sourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Just not enough information out there to meet WP:Notability guidelines. I even tried to establish notability through the parent organization “World Beauty Organization" and sorry to say they do not meet guidelines. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hmm, I'm not convinced of notability either. The creator never came back to the article or Wikipedia after posting it back in 2010. If this is deleted, we should delete its dependent pages Miss Intercontinental country rankings, Miss Intercontinental History, and Miss Intercontinental winners too. All of which were created by problematic editors - one blocked for threatening behaviour/sockpuppetry, and the other has only edited pages related to Miss Intercontinental - suspiciously similar editing behaviour to another editor with a fixation/apparent conflict of interest on the deleted/salted Miss Supranational. Not saying this is the same editor, just that the editing behaviour seems similar. But back to topic - yeah, no real evidence of notability and probably created solely for promo purposes/publicity to try and legitimise this pageant. Mabalu (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll bundle those together in a separate AFD - there's quite a lot of unreferenced/unsourced Miss Intercontinental bumph on here. Even if this manages to survive AFD, the bumph fails notability in its own right. Mabalu (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental winners For info. Mabalu (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental. postdlf (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Students Unity of Bangladesh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notion of notability. First cited source do not refer to this organization; second source is dead. The organization do not seem to have any significant activity within Bangladeshi politics or student politics whatsoever. Information in this article can not be verified. Related Bengali article also do not cite any source and there are discrepancies between information presented in Bengali and English article. – nafSadh did say 03:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I explained reasons for keep in past AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Students Unity of Bangladesh, where I listed a number of instances the organization appears in mainstream Bangladeshi media. As for the first reference (which doesn't really back up the claim of the article), it does mention the Bangla name of the organization. Some new news links on the organization from 2014: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], --Soman (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are too many references, article should be kept. Previous AfD was withdrawn by the nominator. Nomian (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has plenty of sources, and WP:GNG has been met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since we're keeping the other ones. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSN2[edit]

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

Undeveloped article essentially unchanged since 2009 with no information of any value. Still orphaned. BlackCab (TALK) 08:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 09:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename as beta-casein, which currently redirects here. This topic has lots of coverage both in the scientific press and the semi-popular press. See for example the 2007 book Devil in the Milk. See article A2 milk. The section Casein#A1/A2 beta caseins in milk probably belongs here. --Bejnar (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE to Casein. This is not notable enough for its own article and the main Casein article is not too long by far. This is a typical case where somebody interested in molecular biology inappropriately started an article where the main article on the protein and its applications has plenty of room for the molecular biology content. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename as beta-casein. Perusing Gene cards and the NCBI shows this gene/protein to have multiple in depth scientific publications about it. GScholar gets over 6,500 hits for "beta-casein". As Bejnar notes, beta-casein in A2 milk has been noted in the press. In agriculture, milk protein genes like CSN2 are used to asses breeding stock, e.g., [30]. The topic seems highly notable. The article could of course use more development, but already has a good number of sources. I'm not opposed to a merge, but there seem plenty of sources with which to develop an article. A highly notable topic and a stub with no major problems suggests keeping the article. A rename is recommended as beta-casein looks like a much more dominant/common term than CSN2. --Mark viking (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark if you following the NCBI link and go from there to Pubmed and search for reviews (secondary sources, which are we should base WP articles on) there are none. Lots of primary sources, sure. This is why I recommend merge to the parent article, Casein Jytdog (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to beta-casein. OMIM has plenty of information on the gene and protein that could be included, as well as additional sources. That, along with the other coverage mentioned above, should be enough to prove notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Yunshui per multiple reasons: G5, G4 and A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khursheed Khan (Director)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:NACTORS. —Mike moral ♪♫ 10:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 10:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 10:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time does not meet WP:Notability guidelines. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that there is another stub, apparently about the same individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just found this also Khursheed Khan, made by 2 different people that are probably the same. Wgolf (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment-I put up a SPI report for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Film2013 which as it turns out is a sock puppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showitwew! Also it appears these are both duplicate articles of a page that was deleted already! Wgolf (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I keep on messing up on putting it on here, but look: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khursheed Khan (Co editor) Wgolf (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Dang check out-Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Khursheed Khan Pictures! Wgolf (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott Daniell[edit]

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

fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. unremarkable career LibStar (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG insight (Thank god for librarians)ShoesssS ^Talk 17:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Delete – Sorry, I did note that his military research work has been cited a few times, however just does not meet WP:Author status. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found online that his books are in 1,900 libraries, which must count for something. I'd like to hear from DGG before making up my mind. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, that is bordering on canvassing. You shouldn't invite just one other to participate in an AfD, especially since you are going to vote the same way as DGG. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. there's a biographical account by a contemporary author and comics collector & reprinter Steve Holland on his blog which makes it plain that Daniell was a significant mid/20th century comic book writer, who also wrote a number of miscellaneous works ( a "pictorial history of fighting men" called soldiers,soldiers (about 200 libraries) ; an equally short history of WWII, 2 histories of British Regiments, a 130 p. "Discovering the Bible", a book of similar size about plants, about 4 or 5 similar inconsequential nonfiction books, and a large number of novels mostly for children of which only s few copies each still exist in WorldCat libraries. Holdings of older books of this sort are deceptive: first, he's a UK author, and Worldcat is mainly american libraries--it doesn't matter for major works, it does for this sort of publication,; Worldcat also dramatically underrepresents older children's books, which most public libraries discard as matter of course except for a few classics. But all his books were published by major publishers such as Jonathan Cape , some even by University of London Press! I've identified translations of some of his books into Spanish, German, Danish, Finnish; this indicates the works were considered of importance at the time. A/c the blog bio, he also wrote 600 radio and tv plays, and that may be the most significant part of his career--though much harder to research than published books. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @LibStar, do you still want to keep this open? czar ♔ 19:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar I honestly trust the opinion of DGG because of his real-life work as a librarian, as well as his long service as an admin. If it makes you happy, I'm not going to !vote. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as an admin, well you should know better than to directly contact certain individuals to participate in specific AfDs. the deletion sorter allows people to participate in AfD topics they're interested in. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a big deal to ask a content area expert (e.g., librarian) for his known expertise on a low traffic topic. Anyway, do you want to keep this open for more responses or would it be suitable to close now? Wanted to ask as a courtesy, though this looks finished czar ♔ 02:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have always reminded people asking me for an opinion that I decide on the basis of my own judgement of the underlying issue, and the result will often not be what is hoped for or expected. Not that I think Berian expected anything in particular. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article looks a delete, but the info found in this afd says otherwise. Szzuk (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 12:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Older Women's League[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Only useful source appears to be [31], which is local routine coverage. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of secondary coverage at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ORG. Sources that establish notability have been added to the article. There are plenty more to be found as well. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 12:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Griffith Cramer Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:MILNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies. ...William 22:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions ...William 22:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions ...William 22:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Junior officer with no awards. Normally I'd say delete. However, he was the first American to die as a result of action in Vietnam (although not as a result of enemy fire), so I think he just scrapes past the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. There is an article about him in The Tribune-Democrat, he gets a bit of mention in this Stars and Stripes article and a Washington Post article spends some time talking about his son's efforts to get his father's name added to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The last two support the claim he was the first American soldier killed in the Vietnam conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 05:42, 2 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep military history. was long considered the first US casualty in vietnam. still known as the first special forces casualty. street named for him at fort lewis. article could use better sourcing thoughCramyourspam (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a G12 copyright violation of various elements of this site. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Ge (dancer)[edit]

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

Relies on, for the majority, one source. Original Research Relies on Wikipedia for a source May be copy pasted. Unreliable sources Luxure (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The question for Afd is not whether there are inappropriate sources listed in an article, but rather whether there are reliable ones available to (1) verify the information and (2) show sufficient scope of coverage to meet notability guidelines. The majority of listed sources for this article come from the Baidu Baike, like Wikipedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, and not a reliable source. Similarly the citation to Wikipedia articles in the current Yan Ge (dancer) article is inappropriate. Disregarding those two sets, leaves four extant citations for immediate consideration. #1 http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/2000/Aug/2458.htm appears to be an August 2000 reprint of a China Culture Daily article of 25 July 2000 about the 6th "Tao Li Cup". It does not mention specific winners, nor Yan Ge. #2 [v http://www.baike.com/wiki/%E3%80%8A%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC%E6%99%9A%E6%8A%A5%E3%80%8B] is also from a wiki and does not meet our reliability standards. It appears to be an article about the "Beijing Evening News. I did not find mention of Yan Ge there. I am using "葛妍" and "妍葛" as her name in characters. #3 http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/cn_focus/2006-08/30/content_85135.htm seems to be as reliable as a governmental cultural website can be. The article is about the 8th Asia Arts Festival in 2006. Again it was a general article and did not list winners. I did not find mention of Yan Ge there. #4 http://yue.ifeng.com/news/detail_2014_09/23/38882012_0.shtml is an interview in New York with Yan Ge. It was done for VNB Magazine, a Chinese men's magazine published in New York City and the interview was originally published in English, here. From that interview it does appear that Yan Ge is likely to have the extent of coverage required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. So, far the Chinese news sites that I have checked just reference the VNB interview. As far as being a cut and paste job. I did not find a source webpage, but some of the phraseology was the same as used about dancer Li, who defected some years ago. I wonder if some of it is just Chinese idiom translated. I note that the article on the Chinese (zh) Wikipedia was "delete pages Ge Yan (dancer) G11 : advertising or publicity" on 25 September. --Bejnar (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator and Bejnar have pointed out, there is only one source available, the interview. Interviews are not reliable nor independent, thus cannot be used for GNG. As there isn't multiple, reliable, independent sources about her, little alone one source, she doesn't pass GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The family name is Ge (葛) and the given name is Yan (妍), judging by the interviews provided. Section "Social activism" is largely copyvio of [32]... no wait scratch that, the whole article is just scattered copyvio from different parts of that site. Speedy by G11 or G12? 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Free Clinic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A very smlall clinic; mentions oat various places; an example of such clinics, but no reason to think it is of any particular importance. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I initially created the page I have to admit that I wasn't expecting to find much to really assert notability but it is mentioned in a couple of places as being the first such clinic in Virginia and one of the first of its type nationwide. What really pushed it was that it was extensively mentioned in this Rowman & Littlefield book. That, paired with coverage in a 1972 Army Reserve magazine and a 2011 mention in Richmond Magazine, helped pushed it even further. There isn't a ton of coverage, but I felt that there was enough here to really assert notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were a lot of stuff that came up during my initial search (mentions in textbooks as an example, mentions in various political committee hearings, and so on). I did add a little bit to the article just now, but I do think that this passes overall. It's not the strongest one I've ever done, but I think it's just enough to squeak by. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we had a true list page for clinics I'd support a merge/redirect there. I'd suggest turning Free_clinic#List_of_free_clinics into a list page, but we would probably need a bit more than the few pages listed there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I suppose I do have a slight COI in the matter since I've known people who have worked for/with the organization. I'm not in contact with them anymore, but it could be considered somewhat of a COI since I do have some warm fuzzies for what they've done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be unremarkable, except that it has been remarked upon. The sources provided by Tokyogirl79 are sufficient evidence of notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the Grassroots Medicine book as best I could in Google books because Tokyogirl recommended it. The clinic is mentioned 10-15 times in this book in different places, but always as an example in discussions about some characteristic of community clinics. The source cited is not about Fan Free Clinic; it just incidentally uses it as an example and other similar clinics could have been used. Notability criteria is very low and I see that this clinic is mentioned in many places. The weak sources which mention this clinic plus one solid source which actually is about this clinic would persuade me to keep this, but right now, I am not seeing a single good source of the sort which establishes notability. If someone finds that source ping me and I will change my vote. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They could have used similar "first in their state" clinics (and in those cases I'd argue for notability on that basis for them as well), but the fact that they could have mentioned any other clinic shouldn't entirely mean that it shouldn't be used as a source to show notability for FFC. It doesn't exactly have to be about the FFC specifically in order to help show notability in this instance, since it's repeatedly citing it as a notable example of the type. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size or importance of the clinic is irrelevant. What matters for notability is sources and this place has them. Andrew (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Free Clinic. The sources listed by Tokyogirl do not provide sufficient evidence of notability. The fact that the clinic is mentioned in each of them doesn't mean that the clinic notable. An examination of the sources given by Tokyogirl shows:

Of the 18 mentions in the Rowman & Littlefield book, two are from the index and ten are quoting or are about James Beckner. The remaining six mentions do not discuss the clinic in detail but mention it only in passing: see page 13 (the clinic collects some financial information but doesn't use it - which is no longer true), page 43 (someone did work at the clinic and then started another one), page 81 (a list of early free clinics), page 91 (clinic has no eligibility requirements - which is no longer true), page 103 (early free clinics list), and page 104 (good general description of clinic's history and founding as part of discussing why there's a state-wide free clinic organization).

The 1971 subcommittee hearings apparently describes, in an appendix, what the Fan Free Clinic did in 1971. This reference might be useful if a person had more than the google book view because the google book view doesn't give a preview.

An Advanced Practice Nursing, the clinic is mentioned as part of lists of other health-care providers and there appears to be no significant coverage of the clinic itself.

The Highbeam article is a Republican party press release and the clinic has nothing to do with the subject at hand; reading Google's cache of the release, we have only that "Callahan Was An Honoree At A Dinner Hosted By Friends Of Barack Obama For President" and that Fan Free Clinic was apparently also an honoree there. The dinner was held in 2008 and I can't find any coverage on it.

There is very little coverage of this clinic in reliable sources. The only additional sources that may possibly exist would be in the Fan Free Clinic Records, 1971-2006 at the James Branch Cabell library at Virginia Commonwealth University. According to that page, there are newspaper clippings in one of the boxes and it's possible that those clippings will establish notability. But since the collection is not available online, someone has to go and check it out. Right now, though, there's not enough reliable sources to support this clinic having its own page. Ca2james (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge into Free clinic would be very highly inappropriate: to give a small clinic of no demonstrated importance such prominence is even less appropriate than a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Martin (philosophy)[edit]

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

Verifiability has not been established nor any notability visible. Most if not everything relating to the individual comes from primary sources written by the subject himself, has been in need of independent secondary sources for awhile, uncertain if they exist. The tags on the page have been there for four years, no progress has been made. Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:26, 2 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 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable professor. writing a few textbooks you compel your students to read (like many academics do) is not noteworthy. no known influence outside of his own campus. Cramyourspam (talk)
Delete notability is not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added five references to the article: four reviews of his books (three in academic journals, one in a major newspaper) and another major newspaper profile of him in his role as a prog-rock critic. I'm not convinced he passes WP:PROF, but I think this is enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:AUTHOR as it is applied to creative professionals (this subject being an academic, his writings are academic in nature, not necessarily creative, but going with it) I am not certain any of the four categories apply to the subject. Maybe the third one? Aren't most academics who are tenured and write a book or two, it is likely that some reviews of their publications will exist, thats the nature of academia. Also, the focus of the article isn't his academic output but rather about his former relationship with a tiny political sect. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The focus can be changed if necessary. And the prog-rock books appear more aimed at a popular audience than an academic one. It is entirely possible for someone employed as an academic to be notable for something non-academic; as WP:PROF states early on, "it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines." —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC
- I understand that the focus could change. He wrote books on philosophy, his academic subject. If he wrote books, say on politics, that picked up notability under the separate criteria of WP:AUTHOR that would seem to be appropriate. But the fact that he is an academic philosopher who writes books on philosophy, even the prog-rock thing, the subject may be dealing with something thats popular, but it is still an academic approach to a popular subject. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After loooking carefully, I don't see that the criteria for either WP:PROF or WP:Author are met. Writing a few books and having a few reviews is not enough. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Books with significant reviews is sufficient for NAUTHOR. (It is , admittedly, a very easy criterion to pass). But checking further for books, I see he is actually quite notable, tho the article doesn't say much. His most widely held book Politics in the impasse explorations in postsecular social theory is in over 1200 libraries. (the name is a common name, I verified by birthdate) It's very easy for a really inadequate article like this to slip by unless someone actually does WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:AUTHOR criteria #3, and per the rationales above provided by User:David Eppstein and User:DGG. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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