< 27 October	29 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bowdy[edit]

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

Non-notable basketball player. Has never played in NBA or NBA D-League or other major league. LionMans Account (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in William Jones Cup, a "major international amateur or professional competition", fulfilling Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Vycl1994 (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sentence is "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." Judging by the level of competition at the tournament, calling it highest level would be questionable at best. LionMans Account (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He definitely does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NCOLLATH. The question is going to rest on if he meets WP:GNG. I still need to do the research, but I wanted to ensure it's known that the William Jones Cup absolutuely doesn't satisfy any sports-specific guideline, nor do any of the leagues he has played in. I'll come back with a vote once I research GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Jones Cup is the only questionable one. My opinion is it isn't, but that can be argued. His US leagues are all semi-pro leagues, all from a team he owns. His international teams are Dominican Republic team, which he was at for a month and never played, and Lebanon team, which he couldn't play due to FIBA sanction (I think).

No, the William Jones Cup does not connote notability and is not what the SSG is meant to signify. The international participation that generally would indicate notability would be the Olympics, the FIBA World Cup or at worst one of the continental qualifiers for these. It clearly says "at the highest level (like the Olympics)." And besides, he still would need to meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The William Jones Cup does not represent the top level competition needed to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after research, I don't find sufficient reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Pretty much everything is self-published or from the organizations he has play for. Rikster2 (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zota healthcare[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have not provided enough information about the company which warrants an entry into Wikipedia. WP:CORP Shanky3286 14:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the article nor searches are showing Zota Healthcare is the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as per WP:ORG.

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Association of Institutions for Research[edit]

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

Article created by (indef-blocked) WP:SPA Pair2012 (talk · contribs), with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's hard to even know from this article what it is about. But there's nothing that meets WP:GNG. EBY (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the subject of this article appears to have present awards, and published a journal (at least once), as an organization I have not found any significant coverage written about it in non-primary or non-secondary reliable sources; therefore perhaps it is too soon for this organization to have an article, as it does not appear to meet the notability guidelines WP:ORG & WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exempla Good Samaritan Medical Center[edit]

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

Article created by (indef-blocked) WP:SPA Goodsammarketing (talk · contribs), with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. No real secondary coverage. The Exempla health system doesn't even have a page. Just another hospital Cannolis (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a small hospital with no notability. EBY (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and mentions no in dept coverage, failing the notability criteria at WP:HOS. Considering the name of the author and the use of "we", it is likely self-promotional. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Litvinenko (martial artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist - there are words for this. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE and no significant independent coverage. Article was created by an SPA, likely COI.Mdtemp (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was difficult to search for him, given the far more significant coverage given to the KGB/FSB agent of the same name. My search didn't find significant independent coverage of him. Except for his own postings, I couldn't find any evidence of him being a martial arts champion. The article gives no mention of organizations, events, or fighting styles that he won his titles in. I have to agree that this article seems to have been primarily written as an ad to promote him and the combined sources provide only a single passing mention of him. Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delhaize Group[edit]

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

The creator of this article just disclosed information via the Teahouse that he was updating and creating this article on behalf of his company.

Bfpage |leave a message 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text of the message he left at the Teahouse:

How do I eliminate duplicate references?«

As a corporate communicator, I have edited an article about my company that now has the same reference listed multiple times at the end. It was my fault, and the errors were revealed in the error check utility. How do I prevent these multiple listings? Also, how often do I need to cite a reference? Certainly not with every statement, I'm sure. Thanks for any help you can provide, BBLean (talk|C|TB|) 3:43 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

These are the responses of the teahouse hosts:

Welcome to the Teahouse, BBLean. See Footnotes: using a source more than once for how to combine the citations. However, you should be aware that Wikipedia strongly discourages paid advocates of a company from contributing to the page on that company; see Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing. Your edits so far appear neutral and factual, but (after fixing the citations), you should probably stop, or risk having your account blocked. You can request changes on the talk page of the article. RockMagnetist(talk|C|TB|) 6:24 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Hello,BBLean. I highly recommend that you disclose your conflict of interest on your user page, which is now blank. Cullen328 Let's discuss it|C|TB| 6:44 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Bfpage |leave a message 20:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we delete every article that has a COI editor sticking their fingers in the cookie jar there wouldn't be much left to Wikipedia. If the COI editor is a problem, then the path is to get the user blocked, as listed in the quoted Teahouse answer and not to delete an article created 10 years ago. COI editor edits, according to the Teahouse answer author, "so far appear neutral and factual". Now, if the company isn't Notable then that would be a reason to delete for me. But, reliable, third-party published sources can be found for this WP:LISTED company. Stesmo (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Do you really think that the Walmart article has never been touched by one of its employees? At least this guy had the decency to out himself and while its prose style is not wonderful, I can't see miles of WP:POV pushing.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: one of the largest Belgian companies and important internationally. Fix any problems caused by COI editing, but don't delete. Lemnaminor (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what we are saying is that the response to an article that appears to contain advertising is not a problem, and that the response should only be to block editors who confess that they are working on the article on behalf of their company. At least one third of editors who come to the Teahouse for assistance seem to have questions regarding editing their company's article at the behest of their boss. You should see how fast they get blocked and how fast they get their articles deleted. I find it quite painful to offer to help these people and then watch them get blocked because they were honest. I probably should confess that I am probably not very good at nominating articles to discuss for deletion. I really thought the guidelines spoke to the conflict of interest, regardless of the size or notability of the company. Notability trumps COI, I got it now. Please assume good faith on my part, I am considering this discussion, a true educational activity for me.

Bfpage |leave a message 19:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, BBLean is not the creator of the page. Looking at their edits, it does not seem that they inserted advertising, but updated some references and key figures: diff. Personally, I think that is reasonable, although they should have disclosed their COI. It is a large company that easily passes WP:GNG: please consider withdrawing the nomination and help undo any advertising inserted by BBLean instead. --Lemnaminor (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination seems to have been made under the misapprehension that User:BBLean was the original creator of the article rather than, as the article history shows, having first edited the article about ten years after its creation, even if they then did so heavily. As it happens, I pretty much agree with User:Lemnaminor's assessment of User:BBLean's edits - but even if User:BBLean's edits were entirely promotional, the appropriate action would have been to look through the article history preceding those edits for a satisfactory version to which the article could be reverted, and only nominate the article if no such version could be found. Moral? WP:BEFORE should always include at least a quick look at the article history back to the beginning, and if there are versions in the article history than seem to escape the deletion rationale, nominators need to make clear why deletion is a better option than reverting to one of them. PWilkinson (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suguna pip school[edit]

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

Nothing to indicated that this elementary school is notable. I didn't see any significant coverage in independent reliable sources on Google. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From what I read on the school's website, this school teaches Nursery to Class XII. We usually keep secondary schools. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is confirmed, I'll withdraw the nom. - the main pages show only elementary school children. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is affiliated to CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education), which goes up to class XII. We keep all secondary schools. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES .This Reference [1] ,[2] and this School website] does appear to confirm it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:21, 31 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 Natchitoches Parish School Board. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview Alpha Elementary School[edit]

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

My redirect has been reverted, so here I am. Elementary schools don't get separate articles unless they are very special. This one isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Natchitoches Parish School Board. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect to Natchitoches Parish School Board. I'm finding only passing mentions for this school in reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Missouri vs. Kansas football game[edit]

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

Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games generally should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 2007 Kansas Jayhawks football team and 2007 Missouri Tigers football team) or rivalry article about the series (see Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry)). For all of these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We don't have articles on games just because they involve highly ranked teams unless something very unusual happened. Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry) has a full paragraph on the game already. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. No established consensus has been established at WP:CFB in spite of claim by nominator. "not being inherently notable" is not the same thing as "not notable" --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming for the sake of argument that this game satisfies GNG, that is still no reason why this game should not be covered in the respective season articles of the two teams, consistent with the well-established practices of WP:CFB -- that's how 99.99% of all CFB games are covered (see GNG excerpt #1 below). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- By that logic, Abraham Lincoln could be merged to President of the United States. Or we could just have one giagntic article called Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, it provides that "a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)" may be suitable for a stand-alone article.

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a guarantee" does not mean "Delete it" by any stretch.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested it did, Paul, nor to my knowledge did anyone else. What it does mean, however, is that the Wikipedia community, WP:CFB, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter "may be better covered as part of another article." [Guidelines quoted above.] And you have yet to state a case why this subject material cannot be adequately covered as part of the two team's existing 2008 season articles and the Border War rivalry article. That's the argument in a nutshell: you're presuming notability (if, in fact, the topic is notable) equals a stand-alone article; other editors are saying that this material is better covered as part of the season and rivalry articles without another forking/fragmenting of the content, and that position is supported by the guidelines. That's all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: This whole thing is because you want to have one article deleted and its contents copied to two other articles?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, Paul. This "whole thing" is about curtailing the proliferation of stand-alone articles of for individual regular season games of marginal notability and virtually no long-term significance to the history, culture and/or lore of college football -- especially when there are already existing articles into which this content may be placed (i.e. the respective teams' season articles and rivalry articles). This is why we have season articles. It's not like anyone is saying the subject does not deserve some measure of coverage, but a strong majority of your fellow editors have repeatedly expressed their opinion that the overwhelming majority of regular season college football games (99.99%) are better covered as part of season or rivalry articles. And that's a perfectly sound editorial decision that GNG and NSPORTSEVENT permit us to make. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we follow that logic then the information on the game has to be maintained in two places (two season articles) and not one (game article). I don't think we're talking about every game anyway, but for the games that have articles already it makes so much more sense to keep them than to delete and place them the information two different articles that may not even exist yet.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than routine coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A10, "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Infinity Blade III". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Blade 3 glitches and suggestions[edit]

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

This isn't formatted as an article. The author leaves there info at the top and has open questions to other editors (things that would make sense in the talk page) in the article itself. it's not even exactly clear what the topic is but whatever it is it's clearly a personal opinion piece with no references and no notability. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete not even a real article. --Jakob (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOR, WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTFORUM. LowLevel73^(talk) 20:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: an editor has asked for a speedy deletion under WP:A10. I didn't ask for a speedy deletion because I wasn't able to find an applicable criteria and I'm not sure how A10 is relevant to the issue, here. I'm curious to see whether the article will be speedy deleted even if the cited criteria does not really apply. LowLevel73^(talk) 21:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A10 might be OK, but anyway this'll go sooner or later. We don't have pages of suggestions, cheats, recipes, poems, stories on Wikipedia. (you find one, and if you don't know how to tag it, just tell me.) I wonder how some of these gamers would react if we went into their hallowed halls and didn't bother to find out what was what rules-wise. Why don't we have a forum area? We do, in a way. The Administrators' boards, the Village Pumps and so on. All about the encyclopaedia and its content, We're not going to open up forum space to all and sundry who aren't here to help build the encyclopaedia, but who want to swap tips on their games, or racing pigeons, or to post the recipe of the month. There are plenty of free forum hosts, and there's Facebook etc, not to mention wordpress and weebly. Wikipedia is not free web space. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If not A10, A11 Clearly made up. KonveyorBelt 23:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTFORUM, I don't think A10 works here. ansh666 00:12, 29 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. SpinningSpark 16:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Texas vs. Texas Tech football game[edit]

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

Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games generally should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 2008 Texas Longhorns football team and 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team) or rivalry article about the series (see Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry). For all of these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG coverage exceeding routine, historically significant. See BleacherReport, ESPN: #2 Most Memorable Big 12 moment, 7th on Sporting News list of best moments of the BCS Era, 247 Sports top 10 CFB games of the 2000s, Belt game, Led to controversial Big 12 tiebreaker, Stewart Mandel - Moment of the Year. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:39, October 28, 2014 (UTC) Signature added manually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon8765, we need to review a couple of basic principles, including the concepts of "significant coverage" per WP:GNG and "reliable source" per WP:RS. Bleacher Report (reader-contributed sports blog), 247sports.com (blog site), collegefootballbelt.com (blog site) are not reliable sources; and one and two-sentence mentions do not constitute "significant coverage" (pretty much everything you listed above with the exception of Mandell's blog). Significant coverage means exactly that: a meaningful discussion of the game's significance; the routine morning-after news articles about this game provided a greater depth of coverage than anyhting listed above. there is no reason why this game cannot be adequately covered in 2008 Texas Longhorns football team and 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team and Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry, consistent with the way 99.9% of all regular season CFB games are treated -- absent historical significance to college football or its culture and lore. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the concept of significant coverage and the relevant policies, thank you. Firstly, the Bleacher Report article is written by one of their featured columnists, not a random fan. Secondly, 247Sports.com is not just some random blog. It is one of the Big 4 recruiting services and the article was written by one of their national analysts. Thirdly, the CFB Belt is a well-known title that has [http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/6/26/4463800/college-football-belt-2013 been profiled by SB Nation's national writers. And finally, you ignored the final two sources provided with Stewart Mandel listing the game as the moment of the year in 2008, written several years after the fact. I'm not sure how you can define that as 'routine morning-after news'. Both the Bleacher Report article and the 247 Sports article were written years after the fact. 247 Sports and Stewart Mandel are both reliable sources, and the rest of the sources contribute evidence as to the general notability of the game. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a list of other guidelines that support the deletion or redirect of this article:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, SPORTSEVENT states "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)" is probably suitable for a stand-alone article.

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE both support the notability of the article. The Stewart Mandel coverage 4 years after the fact is not a burst article and is an independent and reliable source, nor is it routine coverage. The other articles were all well after the fact as well. Additional sources supporting the notability of the game, meeting the reliability and non-routine coverage requirements: LA Times 2009, National Football Foundation This Week in College Football History series, NFL.com 2014, San Antonio Express-News 2011, Yahoo Sports Best of the Era 2013

If, for the sake of argument, we accept everything you said above, none of that precludes us from covering this game as part of the two teams' respective season articles (see 2008 Texas Longhorns football team and 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team) and the series rivalry article (see Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry), consistent with the established practices of WP:CFB. Wikipedia does not need four articles that cover the same regular season college football game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to agree with Falcon's rationale for GNG, and I'm disturbed in this pattern of what I believe to be misapplied guidelines such as WP:ROUTINE -- I've asked for clarification on this specific one at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Requesting feedback on WP:ROUTINE and no one from that project has responded as of yet (There is, of course, a response from User:Dirtlawyer but I don't believe that user was involved in the creation of WP:ROUTINE--I may be incorrect). In any event, a number of game articles have been deleted under this guise that consensus has been reached, but I can find no place where consensus has actually defined showing how these games should be deleted. THere are AFDs, but the bulk of the reasons in the AFDs have been that consensus says so... okay, WHERE does consensus say so? We have respectful disagreement here and a third party should be involved in the iterpretation and application of WP:ROUTINE and the other guidelines.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CFB consensus, Paul, has been well-established over years by actual practice, reinforced by reference to the guidelines listed above. As for recent precedents, 21 regular season single-game articles have been merged or deleted since July 2014 by AfD discussions in which over a dozen regular sports editors participated (User:Arxiloxos, User:Bagumba, User:Bsuorangecrush, User:Cbl62, User:Dirtlawyer1, User:Ejgreen77, User:GrapedApe, User:JohnInDC, User:Jrcla2, User:Jweiss11, User:Muboshgu, User:Patriarca12, User:Resolute, User:Spanneraol, User:X96lee15, User:Zeng8r), and there are another four single-game AfDs currently pending. Those 25 articles were nominated for AfD by seven different editors, including myself.

As for your interpretation of WP:ROUTINE, most editors who have actually read the full text of the guideline understand that "sports scores" is an example, not a limitation on the meaning of "routine coverage." Your very narrow reading of WP:ROUTINE would seem to be the minority interpretation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Participant list lists 184 active participants in WP:CFB. You provide 15 names--but only five of those are actually on the active participant list. So I ask again, where was consensus established? Do you have a conversation where discussion was made and evaluated? A talk page? A proposal? All I see are a few people making decisions under the guise of what is being called consensus instead of taking the time to actually establish consensus. For a bit of history lesson, the project discussed this very topic about notability of games at length a number of years ago and could not reach consensus then. 15 people do not make a consensus of this magnitude without a discussion of record. A number of people will oppose it if made aware--and the reason I say that is because a number of people have opposed the idea in the past, which is why it was left hanging solid in the "no consensus" realm.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, WT:CFB#Articles for Deletion: regular season single-game articles was posted on the WP:CFB talk page on October 7, 2014 --over three weeks ago. Since then, there have been 36 separate edits to the discussion section, including updates every time a new AfD has been proposed, and every time an AfD has closed (all 20 with "deletes" so far). It's not like anyone is trying to hide the discussion or the AfDs. Quite the contrary, in fact: it's been the most active discussion on the WP:CFB talk page since the first week of October, as we have tried to keep everyone informed and updated, as well as encouraging their participation in the AfDs. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous. If you believe that notice of these AfDs should be posted elsewherDe, please feel free to do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have more discussion than that? Three dudes on a project talk page is not much of a consensus. What I see now is a handful of users nominating articles for deletion, claiming consensus, and then having the article deleted because people assume that there actually is a consensus without further investigation. The page you have linked does not adequately demonstrate a consensus. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon, I never claimed that the linked CFB talk page section demonstrated "consensus"; Paulmcdonald was complaining about a lack of notice to CFB editors, which is simply not true. As for defining "consensus," I urge you to review WP:CONSENSUS: consensus does not require an !vote or a formal RfC. Consensus is usually established without any such formal polling of editors, and is often established implicitly over time by established practices. I also urge you to review the excerpts from the five guidelines I have linked above. Contrary to what Paul has asserted, even when a topic is notable per WP:GNG, that is not a guarantee of stand-alone article on the particular subject, and a separate consensus is established with each and every AfD with regard to the particular subjects under discussion. If you want to understand the thinking of the 20+ editors who participated in the most recent 24 AfDs regarding stand-alone articles for regular season CFB games (15 or more of whom are regular sports editors), I suggest you read their individual comments in the AfDs linked here: WT:CFB#Articles for Deletion: regular season single-game articles. A lot of arguments are being made here that have already been rejected 20 times in the last 3 weeks. Your best line of attack is to demonstrate that this game is somehow more historically significant or important to the culture and lore of the game than others that have been recently deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I've provided numerous reliable sources indicating the historical significance of the game. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course there is a lot of coverage for any Texas v. Texas Tech football game. Of course that doesn't mean it should have an article. WP:SPORTSEVENT isn't really that detailed, but I will say that if it's deemed that every regular season game is notable, then you have 1,408 new articles per year (11 games per year × 128 Division I-FBS teams), plus any Division I FCS games and Division II / III... it becomes and endless mess that diminishes actual important games, such as bowl games or the occasional regular season game that does deserve an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question what's wrong with 1,408 new articles a year, if it comes to that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It'll be a messy logistical nightmare. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why? Wikipedia's front page already boasts "4 626 000+ articles" -- this is only 0.0304% of that. If we can manage over 4 million articles in the English Wikipedia, why is another 1,408 going to put us over the top?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT, with lack of WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Even if one argues that GNG is met, WP:N says that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." This is best handled in 2008 Texas Longhorns football team, 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team, and Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It fails neither WP:EVENT nor WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. It has had multiple national articles written about it years after the fact by respected national journalists like Stewart Mandel. Did you look at the sources I posted? LA Times 2009, National Football Foundation This Week in College Football History series, NFL.com 2014, San Antonio Express-News 2011, Yahoo Sports Best of the Era 2013 BleacherReport, ESPN: #2 Most Memorable Big 12 moment, 7th on Sporting News list of best moments of the BCS Era, 247 Sports top 10 CFB games of the 2000s, Belt game, Led to controversial Big 12 tiebreaker, Stewart Mandel - Moment of the Year. That's multiple features by national news outlets years after the fact. How is that not continued, unroutine coverage? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 15:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Falcon--this game has sticking power that far exceeds notability standards. EVENT, INDEPTH, and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE are met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the Wikipedia community, WP:CFB, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter "may be better covered as part of another article." [Guidelines quoted above.] And you have yet to state a case why this subject material cannot be adequately covered as part of the two team's existing 2008 season articles and the Border War rivalry article. That's the argument in a nutshell: you're presuming notability (if, in fact, the topic is notable) equals a stand-alone article; other editors are saying that this material is better covered as part of the season and rivalry articles without another forking/fragmenting of the content, and that position is supported by the guidelines. That's all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Combining into one article would be clumsy and unweildy, leading to exceptionally large articles that would be hard to maintain. But you're not proposing that they be integrated, you're proposing that they be deleted. As near as I can tell in the previous game articles that have been deleted, none of the articles that were deleted have been integrated into larger all-encompassing articles. AFD is not the place to propose a WP:MERGE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, there is no need to propose a merge: the coverage at 2008 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas Tech already rivals that of the stand-alone article in depth and detail, and is more than adequate. All that remains is to delete the stand-alone single-game article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on INDEPTH, CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and GNG. In that case, it could be subjective decision, as WP:N guideline says that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."—Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I see are merely routine coverage and addition to lists of great games. I'd like to see sources that talk specifically about the game, in more than just recap of the plays. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is this just a recap of plays? How are the rest of the sources years after the fact 'routine'? A game receiving extensive, focused coverage years after the game has actually occurred is not routine. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is reasonably well-written and sourced, receives an average of 18 views a day, and its subject clearly meets our notability guidelines as demonstrated by Falcon8765. Deleting it would serve no useful purpose. As for the claim that "the coverage at 2008 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas Tech already rivals that of the stand-alone article in depth and detail, and is more than adequate," I strongly disagree. It has no scoring summary, its game summary is cursory at best, and it all but completely ignores the information from the game's main article's "Aftermath" and "Legacy" sections. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Donohue[edit]

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

Trainer for the New York Yankees. I don't think that trainers of pro sports teams are inherently notable. A Google search shows some coverage of the departure of his predecessor but not the in-depth coverage we would commonly expect from more than a fan-site nature (there are also lots of Yankees ephemera for sale that pop up as well.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Team trainers are absolutely not included in NSPORTS, nor should they be. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're keeping bullpen catchers but deleting trainers? These baseball AfDs get dumber by the day. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. Trainers are not included among the coaching staff like the bullpen catchers are so Bbny's comparison is irrelevant. Spanneraol (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the notability guidelines have bullpen catchers ahead of head athletic trainers, then the notability guidelines need some work. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the bullpen catcher is listed on the roster and has a full bio on the team website... the trainer does not. Spanneraol (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Steinbrenner and Brian Cashman don't have full bios on the Yankees' web site, either. Are you going to argue that the bullpen catcher is more notable than them? The fact bullpen catchers can't pass GNG, but instead have to rely on some made-up interpretations of BASE/N, should be a clue for some of you people. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is about the trainer, not the other guys. Spanneraol (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steinbrenner and Cashman by the way have plenty of sources available to satisfy GNG... this guy doesnt.Spanneraol (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the bullpen catcher AfDs last week, you guys seemed to decide that one decent article at a team site was enough to pass GNG. Why would this guy, who clearly ranks higher than bullpen catchers in importance, need multiple sources? I haven't found any feature stories, but I've found dozens of mentions in major news outlets. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. Nothing in the article suggests notability. Alex (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable sportsperson; fails the general notability guidelines for lack of significant coverage in multitple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Steinberger[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author. Claiming that both guidelines were met, but he has not received significant coverage nor has be played in a fully pro league match. – Michael (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Oregon vs. Oregon State football game[edit]

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

Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of WP:WikiProject College football, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games generally should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 2008 Oregon Ducks football team and 2008 Oregon State Beavers football team) or rivalry article about the series (see Civil War (college football game)). For all of these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be Deleted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This doesn't seem to be a particularly notable game. Can be sufficiently covered with relevant rivalry and season articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This game can be adequately covered in the rivalry article and in the 2008 team articles. Cbl62 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's a list of the applicable notability guidelines for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, it provides that "a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)" may be suitable for a stand-alone article.

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than routine coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xin Yi Dao[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a martial art that fails WP:MANOTE. It claims to be a branch of Xing Yi Quan so I thought of redirecting there, but that article has no mention of Xin Yi Dao.Mdtemp (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. A search on the name in Chinese or pinyin finds quite a few things but nothing that obviously establishes notability. In particular it's hard to tell whether it has a major following or just a small number of people interested in it, though the search results suggest the latter.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search for sources in English didn't find the coverage required by WP:GNG. I tried searching on the Chinese characters, but I had to rely on Google translate, and that search didn't turn up anything to convince me of notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Do Kwan[edit]

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

Short lived martial art that apparently became a social club. No significant coverage to show it was a notable martial art or is a notable social club.Mdtemp (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like a single martial arts school in Madison, can't find anything that meets WP:GNG. EBY (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find some other schools, but nothing to indicate this is a notable martial art. My search didn't find the significant independent coverage in reliable sources that are required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to rudder. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rudders[edit]

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

This is a WP:TWODABS page with a WP:PLURALPT kicker. I would propose that the clear primary topic in terms of long-term historical importance is the device for steering a ship. The other link on the page is itself a disambiguation page referring to an obscure use of the term. Delete this page, redirect the title, "Rudders" to "Rudder", and add the other use to the hatnote. bd2412 T 16:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom, although I don't see the need to delete the page before redirecting, a simple redirect will do per WP:ATD-R. I can find no evidence that "rudders" is an alternate use for a ship's logbook. No thesauri that I have consulted mention it, the logbook article doesn't mention it, and google searches give nothing but false positives on the first several pages. I'd say the use is so obscure or antiquated that a hatnote is unnecessary. 137.43.188.170 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect at least; I'd prefer to delete the page, as it's hard to believe that 'rudders' is a plausible search term, why wouldn't anyone just enter 'rudder' - indeed, anyone who is typing the plural form will reach the singular first, which will prove sufficient. As the IP editor above says, there's no justification for the plural. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would preserve the redirect - some vessels do have multiple rudders. bd2412 T 19:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They do, but that doesn't make the plural a useful search term: everyone can instantly see there's a singular without the -s, and even if they don't, they'll find the singular when typing the word in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, redirects are cheap (while unnecessary disambiguation pages are expensive, since their incoming links must be maintained). bd2412 T 19:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, so lesser of 2 evils maybe if delete isn't agreed, but it isn't an argument against the clearly preferable deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Rudder per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to rudder. Is there any evidence whatsoever for a ships log being described as "rudders", as claimed here? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the first entry doesn't have an article or meet MOS:DABMENTION. The second entry is a valid redirect target. I could find no other entries to add. Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rudder. PamD 15:47, 29 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. Keep, based on addditions made by Boleyn. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawns[edit]

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

This is a WP:TWODABS page with a WP:PLURALPT kicker. I would propose that the clear primary topic in terms of long-term historical importance is the ancient and worldwide presence of maintained areas of grass and other plants in front of residences and other buildings. The city is comparatively obscure, so no disambiguation page is needed. Delete this page, redirect the title, "Lawns" to "Lawn", and add the city to the hatnote. bd2412 T 16:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Boleyn makes a good point about the lawns -- makes sense to keep with more than just the two. Delete and Redirect to Lawns, West Yorkshire, with a distinguish hatnote there per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to lawn, with a hatnote, per nom. Lawn is viewed about 100 times as often as Lawns, West Yorkshire. The redirect should go there. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked for other entries, and added The Lawns and {intitle|Lawns} to the see also - there are other pages that a reader could be looking for by typing in 'Lawns', and it's less confusing for readers to arrive at a disambiguation page, than at the wrong page. If an entry is judged to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then a move discussion should be started, not an AfD. Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the dab page serves a useful purpose, the more so with Boleyn's additions. The fact that Lawn is viewed much more often than Lawns, West Yorkshire is irrelevant to the consideration of what people searching on "lawns" expect to find. PamD 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus is that neither ellipse nor ellipsis took precedence over the other. (Also, AfD is for deletion only—noms that propose non-deletion actions like redirection are eligible for speedy keep #1.) (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipses[edit]

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

This is a WP:TWODABS page, which I would propose has a clear primary topic in terms of long-term historical importance. Although the topics, Ellipse and Ellipsis are roughly equal in terms of pageviews, I believe that the mathematical concept is of greater long-term importance. One can write without ever using an ellipsis, but one can not do any advanced level of math (or space travel, or many other engineering feats) without using the mathematical ellipses. Since there are only two links on the page, this can be redirected to Ellipse and addressed in the existing hatnote on that page. bd2412 T 15:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, the page seems quite unnecessary; the plural of Ellipsis exists but is hardly a matter of daily utterance (i.e. it's an utterly implausible search term), so all that's left is Ellipse, and there's no call for a separate page for its plural. For a redirect/merge like this, there's no reason to bring it to AfD as we're not deleting anything. But I'd support you in your intention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't work with the redirect parts of the MOS an awful lot so someone set me straight if I misunderstand, but it seems like this should be a disambig that connects to both Ellipse (disambiguation) and Ellipsis (disambiguation), since neither (being disambigs) are a probable intended target, but any one of the articles they each disambiguate could pluralize as ellipses. Keeping this as a second order disambig means we don't have to make the double judgment of first which word the reader intends and second which version of that word they intend. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is completely reasonable - someone who types "ellipses" is about equally likely to be seeking either of those things. Also, having done a lot of advanced math, I can tell you that conic sections, like most of classical geometry, are pretty unnecessary. Open an advanced math textbook, and you are much more likely to find an ellipsis (such as in 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯) than an ellipse. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(In fairness I have never done any advanced level of space travel. However I strongly feel that astronauts should be familiar with both topics.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not convincd there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. Going through a disambiguation page in this case may take a few seconds longer, but will clear up confusion. Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this page provides a useful clear explanation and should be kept. PamD 15:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Crouch (MMA fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter, written more like an advert for his school. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:24, 28 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 14:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The post at the ESPN blog calls him a "coach" but beyond that, there's no established notability. The Article could be re-written (it's clearly WP:PROMO) if the notability hurdle could be met.EBY (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't see any significant, independent, reliable coverage of him to show he meets WP:GNG and there's nothing to show he meets any of the other notability criteria. Current article is also highly promotional.Mdtemp (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man XXX: A Porn Parody[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced, no explanation of notability, consists only of a plot summary. No cast, production company, director etc. Needs rewriting from scratch, if at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NF among many others. When I was young these porn versions of mainstream films used had more creative titles. MarnetteD|Talk 17:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Keep - looks like MQS has brought it up to notable standards. Good work. MarnetteD|Talk 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: the nominator's concern about format was easy to address and I discovered this film was A ) one of Axel Braun's, B ) followed immediately upon his Batman XXX: A Porn Parody , and C ) that it received a multiple wins and nominations from the adult industry. The award-winning topic is not unsourcable, and I would be surprised if WP:NF was not met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Passes the "has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" criteria of WP:Notability (films). Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:49, 29 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 with a deletion summary (Potentially libelous/defamatory) by John(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTube sex scandals[edit]

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

Original research with hard-to-overstate BLP concerns. The article reifies the concept of "YouTube sex scandal" based on wikipedia definitions of YouTube personality and sex scandal and then lists, often relatively non-notable, persons who the author judges to fall into that category. The article has (IMO rightly) been blanked till consensus on its fate is reached; and I wouldn't oppose it being speedied. Abecedare (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a synthesis coatrack to allow incidents that wouldn't be notable on their own to be published here, connecting them through a factor wholly unrelated to the crime or alleged crime.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Kazi Nazrul Islam Airport. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 16:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sujalaam Skycity[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the existing article at Kazi Nazrul Islam Airport. AllyD (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as previous, to existing article. Perhaps a mention at aerotropolis. EBY (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to George Washington University. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WRGW (student radio)[edit]

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

references are entirely internal to GWU. Nothing at all to show notability. It is NOT a broadcast radio station. John from Idegon (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge - If not independently notable, this could be merged to George Washington University, which only has a passing mention of the student radio station. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this belongs in the GWU main article space. Although not a Broadcast radio station, there could have been independant notability but I found none. At the end of the day, this is just part of the student life of the school. EBY (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per NA1000 and EBY. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Villa[edit]

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

Like the previous biographies I nominated today, this one seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people) - and badly, at that. This is just a short CV or a lawyer, nothing else. Ego Hunter (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a director of a leading open source organisation (OSI), a past director of the GNOME Foundation, a key voice in open source issues (notably as author of the second edition of the Mozilla Public License) and as DGC at Wikimedia Foundation can be expected to frequently be researched in Wikipedia. Seems obviously notable to me. ClareTheSharer (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Luis Villa is hugely prominent within open-source advocacy and policy circles, and has been for very many years. The nominator has confused his criticisms of the article with the issue of notability general. In my view, an AfD needs to be based on an external determination of notability, not a criticism of an article itself. The nominator does not seem to have done this. MikeGodwin (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - extensive third-party coverage, as is obvious from the references. This is a very low-quality deletion nomination - David Gerard (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is very well-known in the field of open source software, and is often cited by non-specialist sources too. Some examples: this New York Times article, this Wired.com article on the same topic, this Computerworld.uk article, this Opensource.com interview... The page is definitely not just a CV for some random lawyer. (Nor do I see any evidence that Luis Villa himself ever had anything to do with creating or editing the page, for what it's worth. Not that that's the criterion for notability, but it does say something that all those other people thought him notable enough to warrant a page.) --Karl Fogel 12:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenXL[edit]

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

Notability not established. None of the given references mention OpenXL, and a web search turns up nothing but the website (the content of which is remarkably similar to this page). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found this from IBM. Not necessarily making a comment about notability. Stickee (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an unrelated technology with the same name. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Far too little to establish notability. Even its web page makes it look like something someone did for a conference eight years ago which was promptly forgotten about. Searches turn up many things with the same name, none obviously supporting this's notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Denholm[edit]

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

fails WP::BIO and WP:AUTHOR. yes I've found coverage confirming authoring books but nothing to meet WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shards of Ice[edit]

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

Article lacks reliable sources that indicate notability. I only found personal websites and database website listings in a Google search with the article name and one of the members' names. One of the references in the article is properly viewed in Archive.org, dated in late 2005, but it doesn't mention importance of the band. Oh wait, the article says that two songs were circulated on MTV Philippines and MYX. TheGGoose (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - admittedly, it's been quite difficult to find much about them from better sources. I found them on Discogs, a music education website, in a blog referencing Inquirer articles, and in Pulp Magazine. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as WP:G7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Metaphor[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. No depth of coverage in independent sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 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) 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlotta Elektra Bosch[edit]

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

Actress and model, relying exclusively on her own website and IMDb for sourcing with not a scrap of reliable source coverage in sight, whose only substantive claim of notability is appearing in a single music video — and even the IMDb profile lists exclusively short film appearances, with her first-ever feature film roles still either "filming" or "in post-production". So no prejudice against recreation if and when she starts garnering real coverage in real sources upon the actual release of actual feature films with her in them, but one music video is not sufficient to get a person over WP:NACTOR in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A music video and obscure, little-seen movies and shorts aren't going to satisfy NACTOR, and I'm not seeing any media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Krunal Thakker[edit]

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

Another BLP created by paid editor G2003. As usual with him, the references are superficially impressive but on closer examination are extremely sketchy. There are two interviews with the subject and possibly one real independent source (this one: [3], whose reliability I am unsure of.) Most of the references appear to be passing mentions, non-mentions, or non-existent. Sammy1339 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A page with marketing intentions. We can find lakhs of SSE Entrepreneurs in India and its not wikipedia's objective to dedicate an article for them without significant achievement or notability. I couldn't find any notable achievement by this lady other than the CEO of a small software firm. Athachil (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as self-promotional. Very minor awards, not enough for WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep I can see the verified news channel and news paper media coverage along with awards received. There certainly can be lakhs of entrepreneur in Inida, but not all of them are able to achieve the milestones she has shown in the article that too being a lady. We may need to change the way the achievement represented. I firmly don't believe its self promotion. Vikmi (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Vikmi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: In a search, I found few sources not included in the article and I have added them. One is an interview with DNA news paper for her selection to Google and her app KnockDoc. The second one is with Economic times news paper, being 10 finalists of Inida to be selected by Google to be voice of woman in technology. The third is about her creation of the mobile app to find doctors from anywhere by Divya Bhaskar News paper. Fourth was the GSTV news channel coverage again for the same mobile app. Fifth was her interview to inspire woman entrepreneurs by Youth Inc Magazine. These are substantive claims that show notability, per WP:BIO and WP:N. --IMDJ2 (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — IMDJ2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@IMDJ2: Can you please post the links to these references here? --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammy1339: You should have checked it in the article itself! Here they are [4][5][6][7][8] --IMDJ2 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not particularly notable. Come back later when there is better media coverage. --Adam in MO Talk 07:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails biographies of living people and notability even it seems to be self-promotional article. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 08:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashvir Sangha[edit]

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

All but one of the references (the exception being this one: [9]) are just passing mentions. The creator, User:G2003, is a paid editor. Sammy1339 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found an article here that talked about a drunken student riot that happened in 2011 when the subject became president of the Oxford Union. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON but the subject certainly doesn't meet notability. EBY (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding sufficient sources to pass WP:BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. There doesn't seem to be enough information to warrant an article at this time.--Adam in MO Talk 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus for a block delete of all these articles and significant arguments for keeping. There may possibly be a case for deletion of some individually, but such a consensus is unlikely in a mass nomination and they will need to be nominated again individually. There is some traction for the idea of merging into a list article. That is a matter for editors to discuss outside of AFD as it is a matter for editor discretion, not deletion policy. SpinningSpark 16:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked for WikiProject Video games approved sources and used our custom Google search, but I'm only finding primary sources and user-submitted review/database material. Woodroar (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also including the following games for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 08:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that several of these games do have a single review at Adventure Gamers, but we're not able to write an article around a single review. Woodroar (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't searched for sourcing yet, but I do think that at this point it'd be a good idea to create a list page for these games and have them all redirect there. The overall Nancy Drew page is pretty large and at this point it'd be reasonable to have a list page for the games as a whole, although most of it would be about the Her Interactive games since those are the majority. I'd recommend something like List of Nancy Drew video games, I think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tokyogirl's suggestion. The problem IMO is that individual games may not be notable enough, but all Nancy Drew games in one list could stand well as a split from Nancy Drew the franchise. The infoboxes and/or texts (trimmed to one to two paragraphs) could be reused to suitably provide more information than just a list of names if wanted. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Drew: Shadow at the Water's Edge, I located enough sources to fairly conclusively establish notability for that article. It took a while, but I also fixed up the article. I was going to edit the others in the series, but when I saw how many there were and how poorly they were written, I gave up. Unless that video game in the series was a complete anomaly, I think it highly likely that the rest of these articles are also notable. I guess I can dedicate the entire day to rewriting these articles, but it's not something I look forward to. I suggest people look at Nancy Drew: Shadow at the Water's Edge and WP:VG/RS to find reliable sources for these articles. I guess I'll vote to keep later, once I've actually validated that sources exist for these articles. Given the number of articles nominated, it may take me a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching and so far it looks like most of the games didn't get any coverage because of how many there are- the whole "law of diminished returns" thing in effect, I guess. I'm going to try to sit down and really do some hardcore searching for the others. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Your Google-Fu—or Highbeam-Fu—is greater than my Google-Fu. I appreciate the additional sources, and agree that a list article would be a good idea. From my initial searches, it seemed like the games in the middle of the series seem to have 7-9 reviews each, and the outliers none at all. Of course, even the games with numerous reviews don't have proper reception sections. Ugh. Woodroar (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill Remastered into Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill. I'm going to do this in bits and pieces since there are so many games. I did find enough to show that the first game has enough coverage to show notability, but I don't think that the original and remastered game warrants separate articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly keep, with the exception of Labyrinth of Lies, which seems to have very little coverage. Also, I guess it would make sense to merge the remastered game into the main article. I had trouble finding independent sources for that. Here's what I found:
- Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill (Moby): [10] [11] [12]
- Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill Remastered (Moby): [13]
- Nancy Drew: Stay Tuned for Danger: (Moby):[14] [15] [16]
- Nancy Drew: Message in a Haunted Mansion (Moby): [17] [18] [19]
- Nancy Drew: Treasure in the Royal Tower (Moby): [20] [21] [22] [23]
- Nancy Drew: The Final Scene (Moby): [24] [25] [26]
- Nancy Drew: Secret of the Scarlet Hand (Moby): [27] [28] [29]
- Nancy Drew: Ghost Dogs of Moon Lake (Moby): [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
- Nancy Drew: Trail of the Twister (Moby): [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]
- Nancy Drew: The Captive Curse (Moby): [40] [41] [42]
- Nancy Drew: Alibi in Ashes (Moby): [43] [44] [45]
- Nancy Drew: The Silent Spy (no Moby entry): [46] [47]
- Nancy Drew: The Shattered Medallion (no Moby entry): [48] [49]
- Nancy Drew: Labyrinth of Lies (no Moby entry): [50]
- Nancy Drew Dossier: Lights, Camera, Curses (Moby): [51] [52] [53]

These are primarily sources vetted by WP:VG/RS. There are a few other sources that I didn't take the time to actually validate, because, honestly, I think I've done enough work. Of course, MobyGames isn't a reliable source, but it links to many reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge. Argument by NRP and the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources is very helpful. However, creating a list of Nancy Drew games may be a good alternative. They seem to have issues with individual notability, but the franchise as a series is notable enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've since created the individual page for List of Nancy Drew video games, so any games that are lacking in overall notability can have their information merged into that article. It's a little bare bones now, but I figure that we can all work and put the individual data in there for the various games. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (except a merge for the remastered games) pet NRP who has demonstrated the notability of every single game. Bad faith AFDs by Woodroar who, it appears, didn't run a simple Google Search. The list by tokyogirl is a valued addition too. :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945: I'm sorry you feel that way. All I can say is that I did look for sources, which is why I nominated only half of the games with articles. Although in retrospect, I relied mostly on Metacritic and my memory of WP:VG/RS-vetted general sources and overlooked the fact that genre-specific sources like Adventure Gamers and Just Adventure were on the list as well. (For some reason, I thought they were user-submitted fan sites and didn't dig further.) Consider myself trouted. I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. Woodroar (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - you helped to bring these poorly written articles to our attention. :D Wikipedia is all about collaboration. Please can you help us to improve each of these Nancy drew video game articles using the sources NRP found in order to make them all awesome.--Coin945 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on that when the AfD is over but I suppose there's nothing wrong with doing it first. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Several ideas are presented herein; relisting to obtain more input.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources and argument provided by NRP. As for WP:V, a topic only "fails" WP:V if the topic unverifiable which obviously is not the case here. --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - The page List of Nancy Drew video games will do a sufficient job of covering these games. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Baillie & the Boys. While the notability standards for albums can be considered low, there is still a standard and it does require meeting the basic notability guidelines, namely significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. User:Andy Dingley reiterates that point but I see no actual rationale or evidence for his view which seems to be more about the wording of the listing or conduct of the nominator here. They shouldn't have been listed together but the only argument for The Road That Led Me to You was that it was the final release, which is merely inherited notability from the band itself. No other evidence has been provided. As to Lovin' Every Minute, the copyright and licensing issue aren't as stated 'real coverage' about the album but merely insignificant trivia about the band rather than about the album itself. If User:MadSquirrel wants to create a discography page and thinks it can be justified, then the albums can be redirected there at that point but that doesn't justify keeping them here. - Ricky81682 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lovin' Every Minute[edit]

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

MadSquirrel (talk · contribs) came out of nowhere to undo my redirection of these two albums several years ago, and seems to be failing to understand how they don't meet WP:NALBUMS. There is literally nothing out there on Google that qualifies as a reliable source -- no reviews, no articles about the album, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To have 3 albums with their own pages then to delete the pages for last two albums is nonsensical. Either each album has its own page (as currently) or merge all 5 albums onto one page for the group, biography and discography. Common sense needs to be applied here. Squirrel (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"All or none" doesn't always work that way. Notability needs to be asserted too. If we made articles on every recording ever put out by every artist, then there would be tons and tons of unexpandable stubs. Tell me again how these are NOTABLE per our guidelines, not just why you THINK they should have articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep So your nomination is, "A new editor dared to disagree with me, the Great and Powerful Oz"? Policy suggests there is no-one behind the curtain here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Did you even read the part where I said " no sources exist on either album"? Do you really think these pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to work Google has frequently failed to meet either WP:BEFORE or WP:COMPETENCE. I don't claim that these albums are remarkable or especially good, but our standards for the inclusion of published albums are always rock-bottom and these appear in the usual places, including Billboard, “On this well-crafted album, the trio remind everyone of the musical magic that occurs when great songs skilled production and a stunning voice unite.” This is not "literally nothing", you have a long track record of deleting everything you see, a longer track record of failing to even try looking for coverage and here you did literally (unlike you, I use the term literally) write a nomination that seems based on disliking an editor, or maybe just any editor with fewer deletions under their belt than you, more than policy about the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Blah blah blah, I'm voting keep just because I have a grudge against Hammer". How about showing me some of the sources that supposedly exist? If albums have a rock-bottom notability, then why not make an article on the obscure demo that probably got them signed to RCA? Or a tape they probably made in their basement when they were 14? Clearly those are notable, because we allow all albums ever, and if the artist is notable, then their albums are notable bar none. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't find much real coverage of the album online, just a brief mention here, and a bit about a legal case regarding the artwork. It's possible that there's more coverage around, but at the moment we really only have basic details about the album's release and a tracklisting, which in my view should be coverable within a discography section/article. --Michig (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep That article explains why the album was re-issued with an alternative title, thanks. This is worth including on the page as a reference. Squirrel (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This entry is covered in Baillie & the Boys and thus is redundant. --Lfrankblam 17:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect both to Baillie & the Boys. TenPoundHammer is right in saying that there isn't enough significant coverage in reliable sources to justify standalone articles for these albums. Fight it out on the talkpage next time though yeah, this is Articles for deletion after all ;) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the album Lovin' Every Minute is notable due to the copyright and licencing issues over the artwork, and the subsequent re-issue with a new title and artwork. The second article, The Road That Led Me To You, could be argued as being notable for being the group's final release. As has been pointed out by others, the threshold for "notability" is quite low. Otherwise it could easily be argued that the other 3 albums (which have their own pages) are not notable either. There needs to be consistency applied. I'd support a merge if the proposal was to merge all 5 entries into one discography page, but the proposal is merely to merge the group's last two albums into a page that mentions them only by name and gives no other details. For this reason I vote to keep the articles separate. Squirrel (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MadSquirrel: We get it, you want the article kept. Now stop saying "keep" over and over again, it won't make any difference. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was re-listed, or did you not read the template. Changing my comment on this page to strike-through isn't going to achieve anything, nor is throwing tantrums. Toys back in pram now please. You've asked for notability, that notability has been provided. As per my comment above, the threshold for notability is not high. If no consensus is reached then the article stays. The fact that the discussion was relisted tends to suggest that is the case, and is still the case. If you want to act childish then 4chan is that way. Otherwise, grow up. Squirrel (talk) 07:20, 31 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. Several reasons for deletion have been given, while on the "keep" side we have merely the statement "notability is there" without any explanation why. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Cutforth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Probably could be CSD'd, but CSD was removed by what looks like a sockpuppett created by author. Appears to be popular, but popularity does not equal notability. reddogsix (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll admit it needs a lot of work doing to it but notability is there, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you please be specific as to how it meets GNG. It does not appear to do so to me or Aoldh. reddogsix (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article's references are full of YouTube videos, press releases, primary sources and sources that would show notability for other things (such as The Vamps (British band)) but not for the article's subject. After digging through a whole bunch of nothing, there isn't anything that would work towards establishing notability for the article's subject. The article's subject utterly fails WP:GNG and comes nowhere close to meeting either WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST. - Aoidh (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of those frustrating cases where we have someone who is fairly popular on YouTube (not PewDiePie or Smosh proportions, but is still known), has participated in various things with notable persons, and has received some notice at his school. The problem here is that none of this has really translated into coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider to be notable. Of the sources on the article, almost all of them would be considered WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unusable as a source that could show notability. Some don't even mention Cutforth at all. Some, as in the case of the iTunes links, are actually merchant sources and are considered to be inappropriate to add to Wikipedia in general for any purpose. (As iTunes's primary purpose is to sell you things- its use as a database is secondary.) Cutforth is popular, but WP:POPULARITY does not automatically give notability- it makes it more likely you'll find coverage, but isn't a guarantee in and of itself. WP:NOTINHERITED (Cutforth's association with other notable persons, groups) pretty much says the same thing: it makes coverage more likely, but still not a guarantee. The biggest claim to fame is the music he's made with other people, but unfortunately there's little to no coverage for these singles and as he's not actually part of the groups he participated with, we can't use their notability towards Cutforth's. As far as the awards go, I can't see where anyone actually covered his wins in any reliable sources. His university did, but they're primary sources and can't be used since it's very much in their best interest to cover a student who won an award. Most of what I found were mentions in passing, like this source and this source. It just looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON in this instance. It's frustrating since Cutforth has done more than the average YouTube celebrity and has a bit more coverage, but in all it's just not enough for what we look for on Wikipedia. If anyone wants to userfy this, I don't see any problem with that. 03:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The above is a good summary of the situation. Several things in the article come close to estabilishing notability, but then I can't find any reliable sources to support them. Bondegezou (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. In the absence of further discussion, I am going to close this as keep and will implement DGG's suggestion to revdel the versions after 2010. Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tally Weijl[edit]

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

The article is very promotional in tone, and at least one user representing the subject has edited it. Searched for good sources that can be used to improve the article, but none was found. Alexius08 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current versions, Restore earlier version The current article is so promotional as to be a G11. But I see there's a nonpromotional version from 2010 by a reliable editor. The company is large enough to justify some coverage. I suggest rev-deleting all versions later than that. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled Moon (band)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Looking at the sources: Allmusic ref is just a listing. MTV listing is not independent. 3 is the frontman talking about the band, not independent. Next 3 are mostly about other bands and is there to verify membership of other bands. 7 does not have significant coverage. 8 is not a reliable source. 9 is not a reliable source and the coverage is not significant. 10 is their label, not independent. A search found nothing better. Closest to WP:BAND they come is by having 4 3 bluelinked members but looking at them shows the band falls short. Johansson is not notable independent of Yngwie Malmsteen. Chuck Wrights notability is dependent on the bands he has been a member of. Rieckermann redirects to his band, he is not independently notable. ~~Rooney has no notability outside this band.~~ duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rooney article has been deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable, sources such as MTV, this entry may be of interest to fans. --Lfrankblam 17:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Socialist Group (Scotland)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The reliable independent sources in the article do not mention the International Socialist Group at all, and the best I found was this student newspaper, which does discuss the founding in some detail, but on its own does not suffice to meet WP:ORG. The second-best I found was this passing mention that does not provide any details at all. Huon (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep our decisions in the case of splinter political parties (and small religious movements) should be inclusion. It's the only way to prevent bias. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entry is valid but needs to be improved. --Lfrankblam 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 October 2014

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Times[edit]

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

Non-notable song. See WP:NSONG. Supported primarily with primary, self-published sources. Rolling Stone is the exception. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the lead single from a notable band. There's other articles on the song as well. Just because the article ins't automatically a GA doesn't mean it should be deleted.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ra'ad Siraj[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria (has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources) Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:08, 13 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 21:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 22:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Is not even notable enough that anyone cares to discuss. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Not enough media coverage nor sufficient references. IMDJ2 13:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optica Software[edit]

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

Constested prod with no significant updates since September. Seven references listed none of which confer notability. Most of them are scientific papers merely mentioning the use of the software to produce a particular image (ie, not significant coverage). Two other sources aren't independent of the software, one being written by its creator. The only significant coverage that is arguably independent of the subject is this corporate blog article, but I'm nervous about its reliability even if one source were sufficient. GDallimore (Talk) 18:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 22:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find any notability either. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick Artez Perkins[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player, fails GNG. May not even have enough notability for a merge, actually. Wizardman 15:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. rookie league player article. High school career stuff is completely unsourced. Hasnt shown to be a top prospect so no reason to include on minor league player page.Spanneraol (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to merge as well, per those that came after me. Spanneraol (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Run of the mill player, not notable enough for even a re-direct.--Yankees10 17:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Didn't realize how many sources there were.--Yankees10 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boston Red Sox minor league players. He was a 6th round pick, so they must have thought somewhat highly of him when they drafted him. I mean, they inked him to a $628,000 signing bonus (according to one link: he was the "first Sox draftee to sign for a bonus above the Major League Baseball slot recommendation this year."[54] He got a little coverage at ESPN here [55] and at other places: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. A couple ESPN articles, including a full one dedicated to him, seems notable. Alex (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If kept or merged, article should be renamed as Kendrick Perkins (baseball) as we dont use middle names in our naming conventions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Alex (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have two people by the same name, one baseball and the other basketball. [62] Makes finding articles about him difficult, since even with the word "baseball" in the search, there are articles that have that word in them but then talk about the basketball guy. Dream Focus 15:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. He's young, so we don't really know what we have here yet. We can reassess as things change. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No objection to creating a redirect to [[MIQ]) if people think this might be a likely search term. Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.Q.[edit]

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

Unreferenced sort of article (with no indication of notability) and sort of dab page (but with no links). Best to delete this and then (if needed) create a proper dab page at MIQ (disambiguation). DexDor (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an acronym directory. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with the nominator that this could serve as a disambiguation page. It was probably intended that way, so why not just change it to MIQ (disambiguation) and add the relevant links? --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since only one of the proposed meanings of "MIQ" actually has an article at present, perhaps it would be better to redirect "MIQ" to Millard Airport (Nebraska). --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be noted that MIQ already exists, and is currently an article about a Japanese singer. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the arguments above agree that the current content serves no encyclopedic function. The only rescue I see would be to disambiguate MIQ from Millard Airport (Nebraska), but that is a case of WP:TWODABS, meaning a DAB page is unnecessary. The other things listed either have no Wikipedia article or, in the case of Institute of Quarrying, are not called M.I.Q. Cnilep (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is a tough one. There are a few "keep" !votes based on the coverage present in the article, which does indeed look impressive. Alansohn is completely right that the number of times a person runs for office is irrelevant, nor is it relevant that part of the coverage concerns criminal acts. Indeed: "(i)t is [the] coverage that confers notability". Like Bearian, I would expect that a perennial candidate would generate sufficient coverage over the years. However, Bearcat's analysis rather effectively shows that the coverage present in the article is insufficient. The final "keep" !vote cast after that simply claims that in-depth sources can be found, but does not provide a single one. In all, I conclude that the "delete" !votes have the better case. Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Forchion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for deletion eight years ago. In that time Mr. Forchion is still not notable. He hass run for office many times and never won as much as 5% of the vote; he has been arrested several times - like thousands of other people who do not have a Wikipedia page. The length of the article is also suspect: too much detail for someone who is known simply as a criminal, unless the article comes from Mr. Forchion himself. In addition, half the source citations are to dead links, if they ever existed. Is Wikipedia designed to give publicity to every failed candidate and every person who went to jail? Surely the standards for notability must be higher than that.Catherinejarvis (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the AfD. ansh666 18:02, 12 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 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has nothing to do with how many times someone runs for office or what percentage of the vote one obtains or how often he has been arrested. Mr. Forchion's notability is based on coverage about him in reliable and verifiable sources, and he has received this coverage for over a decade. It is this coverage that confers notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. However, I would add that being a perennial candidate inevitably makes one notable. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of WP:RS establish notability. Per Alansohn above. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly plenty of independent coverage from reliable sources. The fact that coverage incorporates criminal charges makes no difference to the requirements of notability even if he hasn't won public office. A rather dubious nomination if I may be so bold to say. BritainD (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, out of all the sources in this article, literally only two pass muster as reliable sources — everything, and I do mean everything, else is an invalid source of some sort: njweedman is his own website, which borks #2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 24 and 25 as invalid primary sources; we're not allowed to cite stuff directly to the text of a court document, which kills #8 and 9; the mere presence of his name in a list of candidates does not confer notability, which destroys #14, 15, 17, 18 and 19; the pages being linked to in #22 and #26 don't actually have any content about him, and thus fail to even verify the content they're being cited to support; 10, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21 and 23 are dead links. Even the acceptable sources, #1 and #3, are dead links too — but since the complete citation details have been provided, that's forgivable in those cases — a dead link doesn't pass as sourcing if it's impossible to even verify what the source was, let alone what it did or didn't say. So out of 26 citations, we've got two, not 26, acceptable sources — but that's not enough to get a person over WP:GNG. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it properly. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 20:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing in the article to show he's a notable politician. User Bearcat's analysis of the sources indicates this person also doesn't meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If everyone who fails to get elected to something, or everyone who goes to jail, gets a Wikipedia article, then the policy should be that everyone on the planet gets their own Wikipedia article. Being known is not the same thing as being notable. The latter term applies to someone for achieving something. Let's be honest: what has this person actually achieved? The answer is: nothing. Thus, not notable.Asburyparker (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the apparent lack of accomplishment, a quick google search of the subject seems to show multiple independent reliable sources that have written with some depth about him. The article needs to be cleaned up along with the references. But it seems to meet wp:notability.Becky Sayles (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Things Are Possible (Hillsong Church album)[edit]

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

One source fails WP:NALBUMS "with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (that of WP:GNG) The source listing is borderline WP:UGC similar to WP:IMDB. I don't consider that counting as one RS, far short of "significant" in several. Widefox; talk 08:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One source meets NALBUMS. It's a chart. If the band, meets WP:MUSICBIO No. 2 by charting on any genre's chart then the album is also notable. I fought for the removal of several Hillsong albums and this notability guideline helped save several other albums and lack of charting tanked several as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can one meet GNG quoted in NALBUMS above? "sources" in plural. Yes, the band is notable per WP:MUSICBIO, but that's irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. Widefox; talk 18:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - Speedy Keep per Walter Görlitz above. Charting at number 16 on the Billboard Christian Albums chart is highly significant. There are other Hillsong albums that were kept simply from achieving ARIA Gold status, and that's not even a Billboard chart. I will say that the article could be improved with more sources. More sources probably could be found for the article. But as far as I am aware, this album is more than safely notable under the current guidelines. Jair Crawford (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, significant, but not the notability give in WP:NALBUMS quoted above, which is the guideline. Charting, WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:ILIKEIT isn't in WP:NALBUMS, does it hold weight? Currently it fails GNG with one UGC source! Widefox; talk 18:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then I would suggest a search for reliable sources be done for the album. A few months ago a lot of the really early Hillsong albums went through AfD debates, and articles were found on then and implemented as sources on their respective pages, as well as sources of their ARIA Gold status. The same can easily be done for this higher charting album. I remember shaidar cuebiyar and 3family6 helped to find sources for those particular albums and all of the articles were closed as Keep. Those albums charted even lower than this one. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Others have suggested that since December 2009 (see ref improve tag on the article). Presenting some would save it, yes. That's why we're here as nobody has (yet). Widefox; talk 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to be clear: WP:NOTINHERITED. All albums from notable bands are not automatically notable. "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence." per WP:NALBUMS. Widefox; talk 19:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG says that sources for establishing notability need to be something that "addresses the topic ... in detail". This article has no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Moreover, charting alone does not suffice to establish notability. Charting, per WP:NSONG only "suggest[s] that a song or single may be notable" – it is not sufficient by itself, and does not override WP:GNG. The only source cited in the article is a one-row chart on Allmusic. I'm not especially expert about Allmusic, but in addition to the fact that the source has no detail or analysis or commentary, I note that the only cited source seems to be a site that attempts to catalog all music (as the name says) rather than only discussing truly noteworthy music. Also, my understanding is that it is a commercial service that gets much of its data directly from the people who produce the music and therefore should not be considered especially independent. Having said all that, the (only) cited source doesn't even discuss the subject. It just lists its peak Billboard chart position and that's all. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is probably not the only source out there for this album. It's the only source in the article currently, but this article can be improved rather than deleted. See my response to WideFox above. I think we are being way too quick to delete this article when I'm convinced more sources can be discovered to establish its notability. As of now I still stand by my vote. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe it isn;t notable, I don't know. See my reply above about this article being tagged for years and nothing produced. Instead, the notability tag was removed! Finding sources should be done before creating the article, but it's not too late. Widefox; talk 20:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:BEFORE. The nominator clearly did not make a research as asked by WP:AFD itself. Rather than demostrate notability, he prefers to delete the page. A basic Google search plus Billboard charting, and critical response denotes the notability of the album. Clean-up is required, not deletion. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What critical response? I've looked, and I haven't found anything. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a review from Crossrhythms. Do note that it is a review of the video version of the album, but it is exactly the same as the album, as it's a live album. (The CD just has the audio only without the visuals). http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/products/Live_Worship_From_Hillsongs_Australia/All_Things_Are_Possible/10091/ Jair Crawford (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for digging that up. It may help somewhat, but it's only a one-paragraph blurb. IMHO, doesn't really meet WP:GNG's requirement for coverage "in detail". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Normally it wouldn't but I think that with the combination of the fact that it charted should work. That's how the other older Hillsong albums all got a keep status. I'm just going based off what I've seen in other recent album AfD discussions though. Jair Crawford (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- With the high profile that Hillsong have, I would expect this to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to All Things Are Possible (Hillsong album) per Talk page discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Obviously, no more comments are forthcoming after 2 relists. No prejudice to taking this to AfD again after an appropriate waiting period. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skycap[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced five years ago. Still unsourced. Most of the article is WP:OR and advice (i.e. proper tipping amounts). I suppose I could just remove the unsourced material, but there wouldn't be anything left. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not strictly true that the article has been unsourced for five years. Based on a quick skimming of the edit history, I found that the following have been added and removed, removed either without reasons or without verifiable reasons:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-10-most-overpaid-jobs-in-the-us?pagenumber=1
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-skycap.htm
"Most Overpaid Jobs in the United States". EngineeringSalary. 1 September 2010. Retrieved 15 November 2010. Many of the baggage handlers who check your curbside luggage pull in more than $100,000 a year -- most of it in cash. On top of their $30,000 salaries, peak earners take in $300 or more a day in tips. That amounts to a $2 tip from 18 travelers an hour.

The only relevant category is "Transport occupations". Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Porter (carrier) There is a contrast between the quote shown above, and the wisegeek.com sentence, "Skycap jobs generally are entry-level positions, with a low rate of pay and minimal possibility for advancement." Tipping norms and whether or not skycaps are well-paid seems to have been a point of contention over the years, with the editors opposed to keeping references controlling. The current article may be a copyvio of the wisegeek.com source, of course, it could be the other way, too. There is already a place at Porter (carrier) to improve the topic, and the talk page suggested this as a merge target in 2007. I'm not opposed to deleting the edit history, but sometimes you can get ideas from the old edits. For example, I found another source, http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-22/local/me-9570_1_finding-work, using a lead I found in the edit history. Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Porter (carrier) is too broad a topic. This a analogous to Porter (railroad) — which is an "Other Stuff" argument, I know. This is, however, not a question of notability so much as a question of organization of WP. There is a good article to be written about Skycap, even though the current iteration might be terrible. Roots of the profession in the railroad porter tradition, the history of curbside checkin, evolution of the profession. It is a topic that passes GNG, see for example THIS from CNN.com or THIS Boston Globe piece about skycap-related wage litigation or THIS in the Dallas News about ongoing wage struggles in the profession. Carrite (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators states,

“

Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

”

Since I have no disagreement with any of your points, and I certainly agree that the topic is wp:notable, a difference is the organization before we get to the point when the encyclopedia is finished. One of the problems with a keep result is that volunteer time will be needed to assess the copyvio issue. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Blast (American band). (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Neider[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Only reference is to his band's website. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this guy is notable (something I severely doubt, seeing the 4k Google Hits), the article is so bad and promotional that WP:TNT is a realistic option. The Banner talk 23:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - Yeah it was poorly written, bad links, no sources. It certainly needs some clean up, some of which I added. Had a WP:BEFORE been done, it is clear this guy is the leader of a notable recording act that has released three albums (though it was a red link because the original editor doesn't know what he's doing). The guy found old tapes that were important enough Dave Grohl got involved remixing and releasing it. The group is going on an "international" tour in 2014, also documented in blacklisted sources that also have interviews with this guy, but confirmed by the Village Voice. I also pointed to another interview with the guy that is not blacklisted. As an individual, he has played in multiple groups, sourced. He achieves several points on WP:MUSICBIO for notability as an individual. Trackinfo (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blast (American band). While his group may well meet WP:MUSICBIO for the reasons suggested by Trackinfo above, this AfD is about the individual. WP:MUSICBIO states that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band" - I can't see any evidence of independent notability for this guy outside of his band, so we should redirect his name there, since it is a plausible search term. — sparklism ^hey! 15:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the original writer of this article chose not to dwell on the subject, clearly in the 30 year history of the band BL!AST, as much as two decades were spent in a period of dormancy even though they reformed in 2014. Clearly he formed and worked with other bands during that period. He released records with each of them. While none of those bands have achieved notability by wikipedia standards themselves, they each received some coverage that I have added sources for. So clearly he has worked outside of the band for, really, the majority of his career. Trackinfo (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blast (American band) per above. Whether he has worked with other bands or not, this is what he is primarily known for, so if a user does enter the search term, this guarantees they will land on the best title that is notable. Short of redirect, delete. Dennis - 2¢ 22:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Orange County Public Schools. Per Dennis. The article history is still available to help in creating an article about the Orlando High School. Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Middle School (Orlando, Florida)[edit]

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

This non-notable middle school really should be redirected to Orange County Public Schools per longstanding tradition for middle schools, but this has been opposed, based on the history of another, now defunct school, Orlando High School. Brought this to AfD for concensus. Jacona (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would go along with a merge. The article asserts this used to be a high school. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: is appropriate. Not even high schools get automatic passes absent sources, any more. Nha Trang 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a tricky one. Should be titled Orlando High School and rewritten to match, with the new name and function of the building a section near the end. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Orlando High School was apparently one of only two high schools in the city of Orlando during the 1930s and 1940s, the other being a segregated black-only school. This is an important article to retain, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"ORLANDO+HIGH+SCHOOL" is a difficult Google search, but in a quick glance I did find THIS (click image 9) circa 1900 photo which notes the first graduating class came in 1892. This article should be retitled and rewritten. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THIS indicates that there was a second "Orlando High School" which dated from 1927 to 1952. Carrite (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MORE DETAIL on Orlando High School for the years 1922 to 1925. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PHOTO of the Florida state champion Orlando High School Tigers girls' basketball team. Pretty clearly the same school entity housed in multiple locations. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THIS dates the organization of Orlando High School to 1890. Carrite (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Orlando High School is an important article to retain, wouldn't it be more appropriate to write this article as Orlando High School and redirect Howard Middle School (Orlando, Florida) to Orlando High School? I think that's what you're recommending? If so, it makes sense to me. Jacona (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to close but chose to comment instead. Carrite, if you are saying this used to be old high school, then this should be merged to the district and a *new* article created about the old high school. The issue is one of "building vs community". Is the high school the bricks, or the people? Like a Church, we can mean both with the term. Today, this community is a jr. high and needs redirecting. The building used to house a High School, which is worthy of a sourced article even though it doesn't exist anymore (as notability isn't temporary). As it is now (both in fact and here in print), it is a middle school, thus I say to REDIRECT. Dennis - 2¢ 22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pilar Montero[edit]

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

All the sources are local, and being the owner of a restaurant is a long ways from being notable Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose We probably meed an article on the bar, because of the literary associations, and should alter the article a little and move it there. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has multiple newspaper appearances, so passing WP:GNG. In addition, The New York Times is not considered a local paper. You can't establish notability with a restaurant review in The Podunk Press which would certainly be considered a local newspaper. But an article and a stunning photo describing the historically rich culture and history of this woman and her family in the NY Times means something.

Bfpage |leave a message 03:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as patent nonsense. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahawar koli[edit]

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

Near patent nonsense. I can't even tell what this is supposed to be. Results are social media and (probably) unrelated news. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, under criterion G1 as patent nonsense: "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G1 criteria, looks to me like patent nonsense. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 03:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G1. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:39, 29 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 ♔ 03:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Bumgarner Gee[edit]

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

Academic mainly notable for ex-spouse, fails WP:PROF EBY (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Widely published scholar in her own right. She has made notable scholarly contributions, some of which are cited in the article (and should be expanded--this is only a start page). Google Scholar also shows that her many academic articles have been widely cited (e.g. "cited by 31," "cited by 17," "cited by 15," etc.). Thus, I believe she meets, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Furthermore, she has testified in front of the Tennessee legislature. She was also a notable philanthropist in Nashville. For those two reasons, I believe she meets, "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Her former marriage is peripheral, though relevant in the 'personal life' section, due to her memoir and the public role it inferred. But the page was created because she is a significant scholar and philanthropist.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:BIO. In addition to what's already cited in the article, I found Village Voice, Providence Journal, Huffington Post, GoLocalProv, and O'Shaughnessy's in the first couple pages of ghits. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Subject self-published a memoir about her marriage/divorce from her notable ex-spouse, Gee, and every single one of those cites is about it (Memoir also included her opinions about marijuana and the part it played in her divorce). At best, that's WP:BLPRELATED (or, stretching to the memoir, WP:BLP1E). I could support a CAREFUL MERGE with Gee's article but there is simply not evidence that the subject, separate of her marriage and divorce, meets notability.EBY (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree. She is widely published and cited scholar (see google scholar), regardless of who she was married to. Furthermore, her advocacy work, which influenced a bill, is independent of her personal life.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable references substantially about her, including this one that is in the article. --do ncr am 12:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Buckethead discography. SpinningSpark 02:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ydrapoej[edit]

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

Unexplained revert of a redirect: album is not notable in its own right, since it's nothing but a tracklist and, ahem, a Bandcamp announcement. See WP:NALBUMS. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the one who reverted, albeit not signed in. I gave no explanation for the revert as the redirect was inexplicable to me in the first place. I apologize for this, as it undoubtedly caused confusion. Buckethead is a notable artist, and his official releases are certainly notable. Almost all of his other albums have pages and have the same amount of information (which is actually more than just a tracklist and a Bandcamp announcement, as can be easily seen). Just because a major artist chooses to release through Bandcamp does not make the releases any less notable. Crazydiamond1to9 (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buckethead or Buckethead discography. I don't understand how the solution to a reverted redirect is to bring it to AfD. The 'D' is for deletion. Anyway, I'm not seeing enough significant coverage in reliable sources to justify a standalone article, so redirecting this to either the artiste or his discography satisfies WP:NALBUM. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Darren Hayman. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caravan Songs[edit]

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

Unsourced and probably NN. Let's discuss. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as far as I can tell it's just a thing that exists in the world, no commentary on it. The rest of Darren Hayman's individual albums also might not be notable. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftly redirect to Darren Hayman. Not much to discuss; doesn't have enough coverage to justify its own article, redirect it at the first available opportunity and then we can all go home. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spar Street[edit]

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

Not in any museums; sources are all local article style is the typical over-personally indulgent coi biography. If he were notable, the article could be stubbified, but he isn't. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Per nom. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. I'm not finding anything that suggests this artist meets the relevant notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kumron Vaitayanon[edit]

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

Notability not established. I tried fixing the text to make it sound less promotional but it still feels like nothing more than an advertisement. Does not meet WP:KICK or WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find anything that shows he meets WP:KICK, nor did I find the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:KICK and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Kashkooli[edit]

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

Another promotional CV of a young architect that doesn't seem to be notable yet. ELEKHH^T 05:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 05:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 10:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no significant independent coverage of this person. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional CV, created by the subject himself, with no reliable source coverage to suggest that he qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 29 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. SpinningSpark 01:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malletech[edit]

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

non-notable company --Mdann52talk to me! 11:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both this and the article about the founder strike me (no pun intended) as being somewhat promo in purpose. At least one company in this line is notable - Vic Firth (disclaimer: I have Vic Firth sticks, but also use others) - but I can't see any real claim to notability here, and it's only referenced to the company site. Peridon (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. cryptocuurency does not discuss this subject so is not a suitable redirect target SpinningSpark 01:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XCurrency[edit]

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

Deprodded by creator (ping prod poster, User: Jinkinson). I agree with his assessment. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)/Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirements. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Current sources inadequate to justify notability. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect XCurrency fails WP:GNG but it constitutes a plausible search term and so deleting the page would be wasteful. I see two options here: one is to redirect XCurrency to cryptocurrency (((R to related topic))), the other is to redirect it to currency (((R from misspelling))). My personal preference is for the former; either is preferable to outright deletion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 16:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Rendall (actor)[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, do no believe the subject meets GNG. Has only appeared in recurring roles or guest appearances, his awards were for short films in a non-notable film festival, do not believe the subject meets ENTERTAINER. J04n(talk page) 00:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Does not even come close to meeting any notability standard. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after performing a web search on the subject, he is a minor actor, I could't find much coverage on David Rendall indicating he is not notable. --///EuroCarGT 03:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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