< 14 September	16 September >

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

The result was Procedural close. The article was deleted for unrelated reasons (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bentley (producer) (2nd nomination)) some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 07:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bentley (producer)[edit]

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

As I mentioned on the talk page there isn't anything notable about this Michael Bentley page to deserve an encyclopedic entry. Nothing is credible here.Sowhatchawant (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article was deleted as per WP:CSD#A7 by admin @Bbb23:.— CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M. M. Manasi[edit]

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

Article that is basically a resume. Also falls under too soon it seems. Wgolf (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lpr[edit]

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

This article does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles on individual OS commands do not belong on Wikipedia, and this command is not in any way particularly notable.SJK (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Windows Administration at the Command Line, for example. A general prohibition of content about computer commands does not seem sensible; it would be like forbidding content about mathematical operations and symbols. If the current content of the page is not liked then there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with print job and our editing policy is to prefer these. Andrew (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do show us these numerous books. The one you are showing here make Windows administration notable, not Lpr. Notability requires significant coverage not passing and circumstantial coverage. Also, it is only source, not multiple. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same issues as previous nomination. Bit of deja vu going on here. Anyway, individual commands would have to be very special indeed to pass the general notability guideline without running afoul of our policy on how-to pages. This command does not adequately do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no pretense to a deletion argument here. In addition, the nomination shows neither evidence of WP:ATD nor components of WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ATD part is untrue (see my comment below). And the burden of evidence is with the contributor, not nominator. But, I've seen you adding comments like this indiscriminately to far too many deletion discussions, regardless of the article's contents, simply to disrupt and harass. You are showing WP:NOTHERE tendencies. Perhaps it is time you are reported to ANI? Fleet Command (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I am certain that WP:BURDEN does not bear the meaning that you are trying to ascribe to it, for the reasons that I have already explained at the AfD for SUBST. I do not believe that Unscintillating is trying to disrupt anything or harass anyone. James500 (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With equal respect, I disagree. Both WP:BEFORE and WP:GNG entail looking for sources. And I have see Unscintillating making these ad hominem arguments once too many to concern myself giving it contextual value. History shows it lacks. Fleet Command (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or merge~~. We cannot keep this article in this state but Codename Lisa and Lesser Cartographies previously worked to keep lp (Unix) article by rewriting and merging it into System V printing system. (CL was the nom.) Maybe a suitable merge target for this one can also be found? Fleet Command (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below for the new rec. Fleet Command (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~—Thanks to FleetCommand for the ping. There is actually more information out there on Lpr than there was on Lp (Unix), so I have no doubt a solid article can be assembled. Unfortunately, Codename Lisa has nominated a couple other command-line programs that I consider to be notable, so I don't know that I'll be able to get to this in the next few days. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesser Cartographies: Oh, I checked and am checking them. This is the only one that I thought might be worth saving (how would you save an article on COLOR command?) and this is the only one that is not Windows-related. People who know about Windows are easier to find, so don't worry. Fleet Command (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FleetCommand:: See my modest rant here on how I think these articles should be researched and written. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I saw it alright... and wept. Fleet Command (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking keep !vote, changing to merge + redirect below. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the discussion here, the fact remains that there isn't extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources - it's brief stuff inside of Unix, Linux, MAC materials. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Nwlaw63, here are just a handful of the results from a search on google books.

Powers, Shelly, ed. (2002). Unix Power Tools (3rd ed.). O'Reilly. pp. 914–918. ISBN 978-0-596-00330-2. See sections 45.2, 45.3, 45.4 and 45.5.
Nemeth, Evi (2013). UNIX and Linux System Administration Handbook (3rd (revised) ed.). Pearson Education. pp. 1032–1084. ISBN 978-0-13-148005-6. In particular, see pages 1054–1064, "BSD and AIX Printing".
Gibbs, Mark (June 26, 2000). "Primed to Print, UNIX Style". Network World. p. 56.
Levi, Bozidar (2002). UNIX Administration. CRC Press. pp. 227–260. ISBN 0-8493-1351-1.
Gibbs, Mark (June 19, 2000). "All that's fit to LPR". Network World. p. 68.
Radermacher, Todd (2000). Network Printing (1st ed.). O'Reilly. pp. 31–45. ISBN 0-596-00038-3.

To a first approximation, every Unix sysadmin book from the BSD release until CUPS took over will have a section on printing, and that section will go on at some length as to why there exists two (or three, or four) different printing systems, and a bit about their history. This was not an obscure topic, so tech writers needing to fill magazine pages would contribute their own two cents. Plenty of ink was spilled on the whys and wherefores of this print system well beyond the syntax of the individual commands. I'm not seeing any problem at all with establishing notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply With respect, you and I appear to have very different ideas of what constitutes notability. All but one of the sources you gave again gives some brief mentions of Lpr inside a larger context. I'm looking for extensive coverage exclusively of the subject. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nwlaw63:, I think you might have confused lpr-the-printing-system with lpr-the-command. The WP:RS I cited demonstrates the notability of the system. The individual commands that make up the system are likely not notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Late add: I fixed exactly the same problem at the Lp (Unix) article, but didn't do the same for this article. Sorry about that; we were talking about two completely different things. I'll do a quick rewrite.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge+Redirect to Line Printer Daemon protocol. As noted by FleetCommand above, this is a similar situation to Lp (Unix) where the same system has multiple names. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge+Redirect to Line Printer Daemon protocol. Lesser Cartographies (clearly they are on a roll) has found multiple in-depth reliable sources sufficient to to demonstrate notability of the topic. Based on that I would recommend keep. But it is true that lpr and the Line Printer Daemon protocol are closely related and in the interests of consensus, a merge and redirect is also a reasonable course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update—Those not participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lp (Unix) wouldn't have caught that those who did participate were discussing the notability of the lpr printing system rather than the lpr command in that system. My bad. I've done a quick hack on the article to refocus it; the citations I provided above should now make a lot more sense. Thanks to Nwlaw63 for pointing this out. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Line Printer Daemon protocol. Having a compromise is better than having no consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect is fine with me. (Nominator). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect In the interest of consensus, and because of the clarification that this is about the system and not the command, I'm changing my choice from Delete to Merge and Redirect. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That's overall, after the rewrite we've seen only keep opinions. Sandstein 16:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELTREE[edit]

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

This article does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles on individual OS commands do not belong on Wikipedia, and this command is not in any way particularly notable.SJK (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Windows Administration at the Command Line, for example. A general prohibition of content about computer commands does not seem sensible; it would be like forbidding content about mathematical operations and symbols. If the current content of the page is not liked then there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with directory structure. Andrew (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do show us those numerous books. This is only one book, its coverage is two paragraphs and the coverage is not significant; it is circumstantial and brief. So, I guess you said "delete" only haven't realized it yet. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very bad idea to have articles on individual commands. Besides that, I don't see any evidence that this is notable. A brief how-to mention in a manual does not establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no pretense to a deletion argument here. In addition, the nomination shows neither evidence of WP:ATD nor components of WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; consider partial merge. Maybe this article along with rmdir, rm (Unix) and del (command) can be merged into file deletion to diversify its contents but the merge cannot be full because of WP:NOTMANUAL policy. Or maybe one can transwiki them all to Wikibooks. Fleet Command (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep so that it may be merged to File deletion. If the article were deleted, it would be harder to do a merge. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep—Generally speaking, standard command-line utilities have a presumption of notability. At some point in history people noticed there was a problem that wasn't getting solved well enough with existing techniques, several attempts were usually made at a solution, a solution becomes standardized, and as the world moves on the solution can become obsolete. That story is what ought to be reflected in the article, and for recent, well-documented operating systems like MS-DOS, WP:RS is not all that difficult to find. The story here is pretty straightforward: MSDOS introduced subdirectories without thinking through how they would be used, people complained about the problem until competing products started implementing solutions, Microsoft took notice and eventually (MSDOS 6!) added their own solution, and it got dropped as part of the transition away from MSDOS-based operating systems. I didn't know any of that 30 minutes ago, btw. I need to track down a few older cites and I'll then set about rewriting the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of notability isn't required in Wikipedia. Wikipedia notability guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. Sorry. I think you shouldn't waste time on this one. Fleet Command (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update—I've rewritten the article. Quotes from the sources I used are on the talk page. There's more WP:RS to add, particularly with the security implications, but I think the current state is enough to get out of AfD. Codename Lisa, SJK, Andrew, NinjaRobotPirate, Unscintillating, Fleet Command: please take a look and let me know what else you think is required. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Does not, in its present form, look anything like a manual. James500 (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I dunno. I think there's enough to good content that it could be merged to an article on the history of DOS, but I'm still reluctant to keep the article. It's a well-written and referenced article, but it still falls a bit short of what I would like to see as far as significant coverage. One could certainly argue that some DOS and UNIX commands are notable, just as there are notable Pokemon, but I think the vast majority should be deleted or merged, just as the non-notable Pokemon were. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With Lesser Cartographies significant rewrite, this is now a well-referenced start-class article sourced to multiple reliable sources. Thus notability of the topic is demonstrated according to WP:GNG. The article content itself is descriptive and encyclopedic with no major problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. Nice work. --Mark viking (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has sufficiently improved since nomination such that the original contentions are now moot. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ATTRIB[edit]

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

This article does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles on individual OS commands do not belong on Wikipedia, and this command is not in any way particularly notable. Many operating systems have commands that perform similar functions; the function itself (adjusting file attributes) may be notable, but the specific commands used on particular operating systems to do it are not. SJK (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Introduction To Computers And Communication, for example. A general prohibition of content about computer commands does not seem sensible; it would be like forbidding content about mathematical operations and symbols. If the current content of the page is not liked then there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with file attribute. Andrew (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do show us those numerous books. This is only one book, its coverage is two paragraphs and the coverage is not significant; it is circumstantial and brief. So, I guess you said "delete" only haven't realized it yet. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no pretense to a deletion argument ~~here~~ in the nomination. In addition, the nomination shows neither evidence of WP:ATD nor components of WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, showing such an evidences is not required, although this particular nominator does show that evidence. I just come from an AfD that I personally closed; this particular nominator had started it and worked in concert with another editor to help keep the article. To make worse, I've personally seen you attempting to disrupt far too many AfDs with a similar comment like this. You are showing strong evidences of WP:NOTHERE tendencies. If you continue, you will end up in ANI. Fleet Command (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:FleetCommand: With respect, Unscintillating is quite correct in saying that the nominator's original rationale does not appear to advance a valid argument for deletion. The rationale appears to be that the article doesn't cite sources that demonstrate its notability. But we all know that if such sources exist, it is immaterial whether they are cited or otherwise mentioned in the article at the moment. His comments do not appear to be disruptive. James500 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You sure you are talking about the same person? Because I am not seeing what you are saying in the message above. Plus, I've seen him pull this stunt in far too many AfDs to concern myself with your defense. In addition, per WP:BURDEN, nominator has no such responsibility. Fleet Command (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @FleetCommand: My comment seeks to improve the quality of AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For reference, your list of edits on User talk pages is available at [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You were advised when you posted here, "that commenting on other users rather than the article is...considered disruptive." Please assert that, and explain how, the statement, "I've personally seen you attempting to disrupt..." is not a comment on another user. Unscintillating (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, I didn't find your initial comment helpful. By the principle of charity, I read Codename Lisa's objection as one of topic notability. While I would have preferred a bit more evidence of WP:BEFORE, that (or its absence) does not change whether or not the topic is notable. Citing WP:ATD is likewise not helpful if you're not going to dive in and start making the edits. The best method of establishing notability is improving the article such that notability is obvious. The second-best method is providing sources so that others made do so. Attacking the nomination, even if the nomination is flawed, doesn't establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to skimming your link. AfD is not a collegial academic exercise. An AfD nomination requires breaking the WP:AGF of content contributions ~~of the work of our content contributors.~~ Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that is a very mean thing to say; and, I am afraid, very much explains your hostile behavior across Wikipedia. People do mistakes in good faith, and we love them exactly because they have the courage to do that mistake. In case of AfD, assuming good faith is guaranteed. If I see reasons for assuming bad faith, I'd start an ANI or ArbCom case instead. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: I'm confused. To assume good faith, I have to assume that this was not a case of "commenting on other users", because otherwise as per the Group notice the comment would be a disruptive WP:NPA. Please assert that this was not commenting on other users, and explain why. 12:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ashamed of assuming good faith and loving people. And yes, commenting on other people – like you did at the start of this discussion thread – is disruptive an hurtful. You do it in my AfDs. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My initial comment is an analysis of the nomination. I modified the comment in one place to make it more black and white that it was a comment on the nomination. Hope that helps. Unscintillating (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: Not sure if that is an answer or not, and I want to continue to WP:AGF. I'll be more specific. Please assert and explain that "that is a very mean thing to say" is not commenting on other users, "your hostile behavior across Wikipedia" is not commenting on other users. Unscintillating (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations that can be corrected are one reason that we have WP:SK with WP:NPASR. I expect that AfD quality would improve quickly if about 1–3% of daily nominations were immediately closed WP:SK WP:NPASR. Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki. This page is essentially a tutorial and its existence is against WP:NOTMANUAL. It is more like a Wikibook or Wikiversity material. Fleet Command (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed after article updates. See below. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—A cursory search of google books turned up the following:

Petzold, Charles (June 10, 1986). "Changing DOS File Attributes". PC Magazine. pp. 249–262. PC-DOS's ATTRIB utiitylets you change the Read-Only attribute bit. ATTR.COM gives you access to the other attributes as well. As an aside, Charles Petzold is a moderately big deal in the Windows universe and here he provides you with assembly language listings. Because he's that kind of guy.
O'Reilly, Tim; Mott, Troy; Glenn, Walter J. (1999). Windows 98 in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference. O'Reilly. pp. 303–306. ISBN 1-56592-486-X.
Jones, James G.; Landes, Craig (2003). A+ Exam Cram 2: Windows 2000 Directory Services Infrastructure. Que. pp. 309–310. ISBN 0-7897-2867-2. Provides a case study of where attrib might be useful after a crash.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Denying the antecedent: Establishing notability is necessary but is not enough. The article is written like a tutorial. Fleet Command (talk)

Hi FleetCommand. That is one opinion (and a good one). Here's another: If the subject of an article has been proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion. per Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. In my (limited) experience, I can't bring to mind an example a discussion at AfD that deemed the topic notable and resulted in deletion (aside from trivial examples like duplication, attack pages, etc.). That's not to say the argument you propose is against policy or can't be successful. But in practice, a demonstration of notability seems to correlate highly with closing admins keeping the article, regardless of the current state of the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have misquoted. The full quotation also requires "...can be improved through normal editing...". This one cannot. Fleet Command (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The sources offered by Andrew and Lesser Cartographies satisfy GNG. In all probability, any instruction can be rewritten as a description. James500 (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the article content must be deleted, please at least allow a redirect to File attribute#Editing to remain. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. It's a nice suggestion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lesser Cartographies' and Andrew's reliable source finds. Multiple in-depth reliable sources show the topic satisfies notability per WP:GNG. The article needs a bit of cleanup to remove howto material and better sourcing, but these are matters of ordinary editing, not deletion. A notable topic and an article with potential, per WP:POTENTIAL, suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: Look, you are ignoring the WP:NOTMANUAL issue. This article is written like tutorial and notable or not, has no right to be in Wikipedia. (Nominator's fault for not mentioning but) I can re-AfD this article for WP:NOTMANUAL immediately after this one is closed, if it really suites you. Still, somehow, I think discussing it here is more civil. Fleet Command (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FleetCommand:, ok, I'll rewrite it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since my recommendation, Lesser Cartographies has in fact removed the howto content (I should have done this myself, thanks LC!), leaving an encyclopedic stub suitable for expansion given the references found. I consider the assertion "no right to be in Wikipedia" as another way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are no "rights" here as such--the main purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether a particular topic has the potential to become a reasonable article. In this case, the article is already reasonable and sources found show this topic has potential for at least a well-sourced, modest encyclopedic article. Note that renomination of a topic right after close of a previous discussion is usually considered disruptive and often results in a speedy keep. AfD is not for renomination until you get the result you want. --Mark viking (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FleetCommand and Mark viking:, I'm done with my first pass at the rewrite. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The prose has been expanded and better referenced. I see no manual-like content nor any how-to prose. The refs all look like RS, four secondary and two primary. It looks like a perfectly fine short article. I think the emphasis on history, context and impact could serve as a useful template for other articles on OS commands. Nice work! --Mark viking (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into file attribute. After the rewrite by LC, the article is no longer a manual but it is not talking about attrib either. It is now talking about file attributes. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article as it is well authored, well cited, and contributes to the overall well being of an encyclopedia which aims to collect the sum of human knowledge. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And off-topic. It is as much about Attrib as it is about Backup. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only one argument for deletion remains after more than two weeks of discussion, and that !vote does not cite any policies or guidelines. That argument does not say that the topic is not notable, it says that the topic is "not in any way particularly notable", which would be true for the vast majority of material in the encyclopedia such as the notable figures from 800 A.D. Notable topics can still be merged, but merging to file attributes doesn't make sense, as this topic is better handled as a stand-alone article. If merge was really all that important, ATTRIB has many of the characteristics of DIR. There is history (which I can only momentarily cite as WP:OR which is allowed on talk pages), when after MS removed the functionality of DIR to display hidden files (or maybe it was system files), ATTRIB was (IMO) preferred to DIR for basic directory listings. Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as inventor of Artillery Miniature Range, which is not something I can find much about anywhere... —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who's Who 1935 is given as a reference (which would be convincing) but I was unable to verify it online. Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Notes point # 5, a Who's Who entry does not prove notability —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I believe it is notable. There is several Google book mentions of him, plus the gazette entry, which confirms him withe the DSO. The DSO makes him notable. And what about this Google book entry, [[2]] which links both him and the miniature range, together.scope_creep talk 12:44 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Per DSO article, there are 16,244 members. Only some are listed as notable. A Gazette newspaper snippet announcing that the award was given is not very notable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if Artillery Miniature Range is not notable to warrant a WP article, then why would the inventor be notable on that account? —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The several google book entries you mentions that I find are two books that have his name mentioned, but I don't see more than his name being on a list. So, there is no dispute that he existed. Verifiable doe not equal notable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – If anything this article has WP:POTENTIAL. The article is being added to the WikiProject Military history, which is quite active. Also, a note on their talk page as to this AFD will be posted. So I think project members will come on in to assist with developing the article. (The fact that an article on miniature ranges has not been developed is not determinative as to Nutt's notability. We are building, so the miniature range is an idea for another, worthwhile article.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Once the article on the mini range has been written (if in fact enough even exists on the topice), then perhaps an article on the inventor would be appropriate. More likely, however, a mention of the inventor's name in the article on the invention should be plenty. —Gaff ^ταλκ

Delete - fails WP:SOLDIER. I don't see potential for this to be more than a stub Gbawden (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - His page is at least as important as a list of bus routes. The fact that there's no article on the range only means that no one has created it YET.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Importance" and notability are not the same thing. Wikipedia has different criteria for biographies as opposed to bus lines. Stars and planets have different criteria from characters in children's books. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still Strong Keep--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are only allowed to !vote once in a deletion debate, therefore I've taken the liberty of striking your second !vote. Please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have de-bolded Jim's 2nd !vote and removed the strikeout which made it appear that the vote was changed. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The DSO, as a second-level award, most certainly does not qualify him for an article. The invention of the range might. He does not appear to have a WW entry as claimed. I'm neutral. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON and WP:SOLDIER. I'm sure he was a good man who served ably, but Wikinotable he quite simply is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Several books refer to him, particularly in relation to the British Expeditionary Force (World War I). He invented the miniature range as a prisoner of war after the Battle of Le Cateau. There are further references to him in minutes of a select committee in relation to the East India Company. I believe there is great potential for the entry to be widened in scope over time MJT21 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a little confused by what exactly this thing is that he invented, to be honest... But a guy whose contributions to military history and technology appear in multiple reliable sources? Yeah, that sounds sufficient to me, even if I don't personally understand his contribution. TheOther Bob 03:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Military history and the ins and outs of artillery ranges is outside my comfort zone too, but the article appears to be carefully researched, has multiple sources that suggest notability at a key point in time and makes interesting reading even for someone with only a general knowledge and passing interest, thereby fulfilling some key criteria for an entry. I suspect this is an article that could also be developed if it is allowed to stand and see no good reason for a hasty deletion. Libby norman (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MASwings#Incidents_and_Accidents. Chillum Need help? Type ((ping|Chillum)) 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MASwings Flight 3002[edit]

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

Do you have any evidence that would confirm notability?--Petebutt (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS, GNG, AIRCRASH. uNFORTUNATE YES, NOTABLE NO. Petebutt (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Petebutt:, I will not object to the deletion of the other two aviation accidents and incidents articles that I created, but this one is an exception ([3] [4] [5]). If this gets deleted, we should just delete Haughey Air AgustaWestland AW139 crash, 2012 Philippine Piper Seneca crash, and so on. - TheChampionMan1234 03:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The retention or deletion of those other articles is irrelevant to whether or not this one should be deleted or kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tragic? Yes. Notable? No. There were 16 people on board and two died. The other examples given above were whole-of-aircraft losses where everyone on board died. Each claimed the life of an independently notable person. The flights don't inherit notability from those on board but are obviously subject to increased media attention because of particular passengers. The fact that an authority launched a routine investigation does not substantiate notability. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: one person survived the 2012 Philippine Piper Seneca crash but it had broader consequences in terms of the aviation industry. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Commercial airliner crash that involved fatalities, which is criteria that passes WP:AIRCRASH. The nom has only thrown up a WP:VAGUEWAVE rationale. --Oakshade (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and one that contradicts policy and guidelines. From the essay itself - "Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting.". St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, that essay considers the aircraft in question to be a "light aircraft", not an "airliner", and the crash in question doesn't meet either of the criteria specified for light aircraft. So even if we give the essay credence (we shouldn't) the subject still doesn't meet the criteria established there. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the nom who used WP:AIRCRASH, which this passes, not me. And a 20 person aircraft is not "light aircraft". Smaller than a 747, yes, but not "light." A 2-seater would be "light." I might as well just say "Keep per WP:NOTNEWS, GNG, AIRCRASH" and that would be just as valid as the nom has given zero rational as to why it fails those guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of misses the point. We shouldn't be using AIRCRASH at all. But given it has been mentioned, the essay uses gross weight of an aircraft (not number of seats) to differentiate between "light aircraft" and other aircraft. The aircraft in question falls well short of the gross weight specified and so is (according to the essay) a "light aircraft". They aren't my definitions and I think we're better off ignoring the essay and using WP:EVENT (which this also fails). St★lwart¹¹¹ 20:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to MASwings#Incidents and Accidents, where this accident is already mentioned. Unfortunately, it does not meet WP:EVENT because practically all coverage of this crash stopped within two to three days and I see no evidence of any long term effects like a major NTSB investigation, changes to how the builder builds or maintains their aircraft, criminal charges or penalties against the airline, lawsuits from survivors, etc. Yes, two people died, but we do not have articles on every single aviation incident that resulted in a fatality, do we (like the recent jet fighter crash that killed five people in Libya or small plane crash in Ontario that killed one)? The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MASwings#Incidents and Accidents per Legendary Ranger. This doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria for a stand-alone article. Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as stated above. WP:AIRCRASH only sets forth the starting point for consideration and, as discussed above, this article does not even meet those guidelines.--Rpclod (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - not sure why this was relisted... there is a single editor in favour of retention and four policy-based arguments for deletion/redirection. How much consensus do we need? St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Ryder[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Cited book is not reliable since AuthorHouse is a print on demand publisher. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real signs of notability here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added and per comments below. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Does not meet PORNBIO. Cowlibob (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep as per the excellent source work found by the user below. Cowlibob (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and speedy close. Under her legal name, Lisa Marie Abato," "Ryder" was one of the best-known anti-porn activists in the U.S. Abato and her activities were covered in major media outlets like the Chicago Tribune[6] and the Los Angeles Times[7], commented on in The New York Times[8], discussed in the State Bar of California's official journal [9], and cited in social science books [10]. Newsbank search also turns up coverage in, inter alia, the San Francisco Examiner, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Washington Times, the Boston Herald, the Tampa Tribune, the Sacramento Bee and others. Not notable as a porn performer, but clears the GNG by a significant margin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The citations you list stem from her 1994 California ballot initiative to ban pornography as a former pornographer. She's an anti porn-activist BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If she is notable as anti-porn activist Lisa Marie Abato and not as porn star Holly Ryder as HW stated, then if kept, her article should probably be renamed to Lisa Marie Abato the same way that Shelley Lubben's article is named Shelley Lubben, not Roxy (pornographic actress). Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Completely agree with Rebecca. Rename the article if she is only deemed notable for activities using her real name. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rebecca1990's amendment of changing the article name after closure. Cowlibob (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Lisa Marie Abato (which currently redirects to Holly Ryder. She may not satisfy WP:PORNBIO, but she meets WP:GNG for her subsequent anti-porn activism, as indicated by sources cited above. I further agree with Rebecaa's suggestion that, as Ms. Abato is most notable for her anti-porn activism under her given name, the article should reside there.-- danntm ^T _C 22:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has demonstarted that as a anti porn activist she passes the WP:GNG. Agree with Rebecca1990's suggestion to change the name of the article to Lisa Marie Abato.
Keep as the article has substantially changed since the original nomination, I do not believe the original claims by the nominator still hold. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Furr[edit]

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

Not notable as mediaeval English professor (meets none of the criteria of WP:PROF in his day job), not notable for history hobby (minor coverage at best, as independent scholar meets none of the criteria for WP:PROF), 2012 media coverage would be WP:BLP1E. He seems to have fans amongst his political fellows, but I can't even find evidence of actual notability on this level. I asked over the past several weeks on the talk page for evidence of notability, a few trivial sources have been added but nothing that comes within a mile of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Stalin apologetics and Holodomor denial are fringe positions; if Furr passed WP:FRINGE that would count as notability too - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Grover Furr that you wrote on the 'Stalin Apologetics' page on RationalWiki was clearly written for aggressive and inflammatory purposes, which makes this deletion proposal highly suspicious. Not to mention the fact that you created that whole page only a month ago, suggesting that it's part of a larger effort taken on by you to silence alternative views on Joseph Stalin. Even if my accusations are not true, the arguments against Grover Furr's notability are severely flawed themselves. It is obvious that the proposal to delete this page is not for the sake of neutrality or credibility - it's for outright censorship. The entire question of whether this page should exist is on false grounds and should be discarded immediately. Unrequestedsillything 00:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - as per above reasons. He has a few followers but the world of tankie-dom is mercifully small. Mrhalligan (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring the derogatory term for the moment ... if there was even WP:GNG-level noteworthiness there rather than just "he appeared at a conference" or "someone notable reviewed his book" (notable reviewers review lots of non-notable books) ... I'm willing to be convinced, but even the fans couldn't produce - David Gerard (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the metric laid out here, a sizable portion of the WP:PROF section would need to be gutted, as almost none meet this qualification level. As it is this particular article being targeted, it must be judged that the reason for deletion has nothing to do with the person, but to do with what his particular writing specialty is regarding. This looks to be nothing other than attempted censorship of a viewpoint not held by those asking for deletion, and nothing more. (Downix (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - per the nom. Given WP:BLP and the lack of meeting the criteria of WP:PROF, I see no reason Furr's article should remain. --Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Literaturnaia Rossiia and Socialism and Democracy are both fine sources, as is the Chinese journal which reviewed Furr's work on Khrushchev. I would like to note that Gerard's comment, "even the fans couldn't produce [more sources]," is incorrect. There are more I could provide. Just focusing on critical commentary: David Horowitz sharply attacked Furr in one of his books and Michael Medved also devoted some attention to him on his radio show. In late 2012 comments he made about Stalin in the context of a Montclair State University debate went viral across various conservative websites, most notably FrontPage Magazine, The Daily Caller and PJ Media. The Star-Ledger ("the largest circulated newspaper in the U.S. state of New Jersey" according to the Wikipedia article) had critical articles on him as well. All this is notable. I would also like to note that Mrhalligan's remark that "the world of tankie-dom is mercifully small" suggests that something irrelevant towards adherence to Wikipedia guidelines has motivated his decision. --Ismail (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2012 coverage is a really clear WP:BLP1E, particularly as he was literally set up by libertarians with cameras looking for a "Marxist professor" to pillory - arguably that wasn't even about Furr as an individual at all, and using such single-incident personal attacks with the intent of blackening someone's name in the media to drag someone into Wikipedia strikes me as an extremely bad precedent on BLP grounds (hence BLP1E being a thing). For the other points, please enumerate how he does on the nine criteria of WP:PROF - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Grover Furr is notable for more than one event. The fact that he has published multiple books over several years proves that, not to mention the occasions where his appearance in public were significant. - Unrequestedsillything (talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deleting this article will reveal that Wikipedia can't tolerate alternative opinion on Stalin. The people who want this article to be deleted has anyone even read a single work of Prof. Furr? In his books, he hardly speaks; he simply presents what archives tell. First read his works and then say anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradesadi (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for reasons listed by others thus far. --DracoStraybyrn (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)— DracoStraybyrn (Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- My account is 6 years old - hardly "registering to participate in this conversation". I just haven't used it for edits frequently, but if that's the defining characteristic for whether my opinion counts, perhaps I should start. --DracoStraybyrn (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - If there's consensus for deletion. I'd like to add this to my rehab collection. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An output of 12 books (even if some may be Russian and English version of the same) surely satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. It is notable that one of the books is published by Penguin, a general publisher, suggesting they think the work notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - we speak about censorship in the former Soviet Union, but what I see here is censorship at its best. Grover Furr's scholarship which is impeccable is not the issue being contested here, but the conclusions derived from his research. I may not like the fact the sky is blue,but it is. If Wiki removes this page it is proving the fact there is no freedom of speech in the US and that research and scholarship are irrelevant and that ideology is the only thing that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicacoco2005 (talk • Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - The arguments given for deletion are at best questionable. This looks to be little more than an attempt to censor an unpopular position. After seeing this page listed for deletion, I have taken the time to read two of Grover Furr's work, and in cross-referencing his positions against citable references, I have found nothing to disqualify him as a genuine historian, admittedly one with a viewpoint which is not generally popular. We do not delete unpopular historians - even discredited historians remain on Wikipedia. If Grover Furr is to be deleted on the grounds given, we would have to hold this standard up to others which they could not meet. Who would be the next writer to eliminate under this new standard? Edmund Morris? David McCullough? Joan Wallach Scott? No, like Grover Furr's position or no, deleting him is just censorship. (Downix (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Doing some checking, I discovered that this is not the first time someone has attempted to have this article deleted. It was agreed to keep, and that it met the qualifications based on WP:GNG as noted by Bgwhite on the talk page. Now we have David Gerard inventing this new WP:PROF standard in order to force the deletion. (Downix (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Deleting this article would be to uphold a double standard as there are countless other articles about academics whose notabilities are less that Furr. Along with others here, I also agree that the reasons and motives behind the arguments for deletion are questionable and lack merit. Deleting this article would indeed be nothing more than censorship. (Unrequestedsillything (Unrequestedsillything) 00:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)) • Unrequestedsillything has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Handily meets WP:GNG with the following discussion of him in third-party sources:

I'm sure there are more sources, but this is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to David Gerard, I would just like to note that the claim he was "literally set up by libertarians with cameras looking for a 'Marxist professor' to pillory," assuming it's true, has no bearing on if an incident is notable or not. The fact is that Grover Furr was criticized by various conservative outlets (which are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles on them) for his comments on Stalin in the context of a debate. Even more importantly, however, he has been criticized in the past by David Horowitz (as noted above, and the reference used to be in the article until it was removed for being "biased" against Furr), and in the book In Denial (also noted above), which was written by professors John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.

I would also like to comment on your original message, where you referred to Furr's writings on the USSR as a "history hobby." Furr has been writing about Soviet history for at least 28 years. He published an article in the Summer-Fall 1986 issue of Russian History/Histoire Russe, In that same issue there were articles by J. Arch Getty, Sheila Fitzpatrick, William Chase and other historians. The fact that he's published various books on this "hobby," and is clearly most notable for said "hobby," demonstrates that it probably isn't a hobby. No one would say Simon Leys had a "hobby" of writing about the Cultural Revolution just because he taught literature instead of history. --Ismail (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grover Furr is well known. The deletion is being demanded for suppressing a political view. Nq11 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Politically motivated nonsense. Alyxr (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reasons above. Given the fact that there is someone here registering an account with the sole purpose of calling for the deletion of Grover Furr from Wikipedia, this seems like an attempt at censorship of inconveniently accurate pro-Soviet studies and research. The reasons given for deletion are unconvincing at best. Cubansocialist ^{talk contribs} 18:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)— Cubansocialist (Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am Hank Glocklin. I am no stranger to the controversy surrounding the writings of Professor Grover. I see here that his page is marked for deletion and I am surprised. Professor Furr's work is well researched. He cites sources and qualifies all of his statements. It seems that the only reason that his work is being targeted is because some editors at Wikipedia disagree with his findings. Let them prove otherwise. Until then, let his work alone. It is not the job of Wikipedia to sensor university professors. It is their job to confirm the accuracy of the subject. There is no reason to doubt the authentic and reliable statements made by Furr. Hank Glocklin

Delete as per the initial reasons offered by David Gerard. I haven't found notability inside his field, let alone actual credibility inside the field of Soviet History. The irony is the accusations of this deletion being politically motivated are themselves, politically motivated. SomeLeviathan (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC) SomeLeviathan (Contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note for anyone reviewing this AFD. There are a number of users on this talk page claiming the AFD is "politically motivated", etc. Please take the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of political motivation in this AFD, and considering the nominator is an active Wikipedian, who has probably hundreds of AFD noms, and probably none of them related to Soviet apologist academics. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is clearly politically motivated. Based on David Gerard's writings on RationalWiki, he is clearly trying to delete this page because he is opposed to Grover Furr's teachings. Also, regardless of whether it is politically motivated, other users here have already proven Furr's notability. Unrequestedsillything 04:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see this is being claimed, but not substantiated. Could you please substantiate it? This would make the case much stronger. Thanks! - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - David Gerard introduced a metric of WP:PROF in order to rationalize deletion despite it having been determined in 2008 to qualify based on WP:GNG. This denotes a desire to delete by introducing a new metric despite a metric for retention already having been established 6 years ago. {Downix (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)}[reply]
  - It would seem that if David had a political motivation, he'd be more inclined for keeping the article, because Furr's article on Wikipedia would present an opportunity to make him a target. It's not like Wikipedia is missing articles on individuals who hold unpopular positions. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 16:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, it would be really nice to see anyone actually addressing WP:PROF, point by point. However sincerely-aggrieved, not addressing the notability guidelines doesn't advance the discussion - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As has already been said several times, even if Grover Furr does not qualify under WP:PROF, there are other forms of notability under which he has been PROVEN to qualify under, especially WP:GNG. I don't need to give my personal arguments for WP:GNG, because other here have already given more than enough evidence for this. Unrequestedsillything 04:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and you shall receive David Gerard. The following numbers correspond with this page

1. Furr hasn't done this to my knowledge. If someone is willing to provide information that he has made in impact in his field (Medieval English lit) then fine, but his historical work is outside of his field so imo his work on Stalin isn't worth considering for this criteria.
2. I can't find any awards he has been presented.
3. He isn't.
4. It hasn't. Similar to #1.
5. He doesn't. per his own site.
6. Again, he doesn't.
7. He hasn't made an impact outside of academia with his work inside his specialty.
8. He isn't.
9 He isn't. SomeLeviathan (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF states that "it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines." Furr isn't a history professor so I don't see how WP:PROF applies. --Ismail (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't notable on GNG either. "Best seller in Russia" turned out on examination to be "author claimed it sold well in one section of one bookshop in Moscow". Assorted scattered reviews. Claims that turn out not to be supported by the references at all. This is what puffed-up BLPs look like - David Gerard (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough people know who Grover Furr is for him to be notable. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, David Gerard, I see that you wrote an entire section dedicated to bashing Grover Furr on RationalWiki. You took the time to slander him there. Is he somehow notable there, but not here? Unrequestedsillything (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's utterly irrelevant to this deletion discussion, but since you ask - I wrote up something on Stalin apologists (Holodomor denialists) and so forth) on RationalWiki, which has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia apart from also running on wiki software. I added Furr there since he's a favourite reference of Stalin apologists and Holodomor denialists. I looked him up and found a Wikipedia article. He looked ... really not very noteworthy at all. I asked on the talk page if there was more evidence of notability. Getting no answer, I added a PROD. Ismail removed it and insisted he'd make notability clear; I was glad to hear this. He then added stuff that doesn't actually evidence WP:PROF (either as an English professor or as an independent historian) nor GNG. So I put it up for deletion. Because he really isn't noteworthy, even as he has a few fans who share his views on Stalin and the things Stalin did. That's the story of this nomination.

So, rather than continuing to make personal attacks on me, I would ask you: please go through each of the nine criteria of WP:PROF and show how Prof Furr meets them, either as an English professor or an independent historian. This is not a vote, you need to bring arguments and refrain from personal attacks. One hundred "I like him and you are a political censor" with no arguments relevant to notability criteria ... equals no arguments relevant to notability criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth also noting that Stalin apologetics and Holodomor denialism is an extremely fringe position, as fringe as Holocaust denial (a similar denial of an extensively documented event widely considered an attempted genocide); Furr's views are well outside the mainstream of history and historiography (and he is not a professional historian). That he has fringe fans does not show that his views are actually notable in the wider world. If you could show notability under WP:FRINGE, that would count too. ("The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.")

I want to stress: I am willing to be convinced. I don't agree with Furr's views, but if Furr is actually notable then he should have an article. So convince me, with relevant arguments - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unrequestedsillything, David Gerard is not David Gerald whom you so helpfully linked to, twice. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 21:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is my proposal that David Gerard be removed from discussions on this topic, as he has continually invented new criteria to validate deletion, despite it having been acknowledged in discussions back in 2008 that this article qualifies under WP:GNG. This appears to be a personal vendetta of some sort, and not a legitimate attempt to edit Wikipedia. First he attempted to claim it does not qualify as WP:PROF and had that argument dismantled. Now he is attempting to claim it should be deleted due to not qualifying as WP:FRINGE, and has attempted to further muddle the issue by attempting to claim this is over academics. Grover Furr was found in 2008 to qualify under WP:GNG and that this is happening now 6 years later is ridiculous. This is not a place for personal vendettas, which is what this appears to be at this point. I reiterate, this is an attempt at censorship. (Downix (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

No, I'm saying WP:FRINGE is another way to qualify. Any of the methods would qualify. Do you have a pointer to this 2008 discussion? (I've asked for pointers above to claimed previous discussions.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You already commented on it, referenced from the main article's talk page. (Downix (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

That's just a talk page discussion on whether he might pass or not. It's not sufficient to replace a proper AFD discussion, which is what this is. Specific arguments that cite the notability guidelines need to be brought right here to the discussion. I don't understand your apparent resistance to doing so - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor I understand why you are continuing to push despite having met the qualifications for now three different categories of noteworthiness. (Downix (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 22:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note — It should be noted that the vast majority of the keep votes above are invalid arguments. 1. Even if an AfD nomination was done with political intent—and suggesting it is usually a violation our assumption of good faith and personal attack policies unless it's clear and obvious—if the article fails on its merits of meeting our other content guidelines and policies, the article gets axed. 2. Whether or not the arguments made by the subject within their body of work have merit is irrelevant to this discussion. The guideline-and-policy-based concern raised by the nominator is that the subject fails to meet the guidelines for the notability of academics (WP:PROF) and that the existing coverage that would have gone toward meeting WP:PROF is instead also a violation of our one-event notability of a living person (and/or presumably one-event notability of any biography). Arguments going forth should address those concerns (or add policy-and-guideline-based concerns/rebuttals to them), otherwise they will be summarily ignored by the closing admin. --slakr^\ talk / 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note that demonstrating (not merely blankly asserting) notability under WP:GNG or WP:FRINGE, for example, would also pass notability - not all of these, but any of these - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Save the article was not added for WP:PROF nor WP:FRINGE but on WP:GNG. The continuing attempt to force deletion based on a non-relevant argument still smells of censorship. Since WP:FRINGE is based on pseutoscientific analysis, and Furr's work is based instead on documented reference, it would still be an attempt at censorship by dismissing work done on those grounds. The result is the same, an attempt at censorship over an unpopular opinion. - (Downix (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    - Holodomor denial is in no manner mainstream. But, for example, we have an article on David Irving despite the similar fringeness of his opinions. You need to show noteworthiness - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since Furr is not part of Holodomor denial that I have read so far (only having read two of his books so far), it appears to be yet another false narrative being introduced in order to further muddy the water. You are just arbitrarily dismissing any references desired in an attempt to delete a page as a form of censorship. (Downix (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
        A trivial Google search for "grover furr" "holodomor" brings up [11] (Furr in his own words) and [12] (a review of Furr's particular work most celebrated by fans) - David Gerard (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note, Furr does qualify per Wikipedia:Notability. We can verify that yes, he has written several books. Yes, we can verify that these books will not vanish overnight. Yes, we can verify that these books have been cited by multiple secondary sources. Yes, we can verify that he has been criticized by others. Now, per Notability, it should have been argued first that perhaps Furr should have been merged in with another wikipedia article before the call to delete. That the entire notability and call for deletion process was bypassed in this articles case, I reiterate that David is not acting in a good faith attempt to maintain the quality standards of wikipedia, and instead this effort is just a form of censorship of an unpopular viewpoint. (Downix (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Dr. Furr ultimately lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing he is a notable academic. Merely because he was once somewhat remarked upon does not mean he is now notable.-- danntm ^T _C 22:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (Downix (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, per Binksternet. GNG is met. Darmokand (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know that this guy is notable as an academic, but when multiple reliable sources are talking about someone's political views -- even to call them ridiculous (as I personally believe that they are, not that it matters) -- then the guy is probably notable generally.TheOther Bob 03:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coming to this late in the day, it seems that rather than argue on PROF it should be considered solely under GNG, rather in the way that a page exists on, say, David Irving. Individuals who attract impassioned coverage – pro and anti – should be on Wikipedia, by definition, and we exist to represent what is out there, so calling this FRINGE seems to miss the cultural and historical context/value, whatever our personal viewpoints may be. Obviously, careful editing and monitoring become even more important on such pages, but better to see discussions and consensus achieved on Wikipedia than risk claims of censorship and watch information grow off Wikipedia. Libby norman (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know Grover Furr a bit from joint membership in a historical society. He holds fringe views in the field of Soviet history, views which have made him the target of several conservative commentators in the same field. I don't think that by any normal measure of notability Mr. Furr meets GNG outside of his making fringe views and being criticized for fringe views. I do not think he meets any Special Notability low bar for academics. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the arguments for keeping this article contain sufficient evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Imtiaz Ali Naqvi[edit]

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

The subject's research has not made significant impact in its scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The subject neither passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics) nor Wikipedia:Notability (people). It should be deleted. Justice007 (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

There is no valid reason for deletion of this page, because the subject's research contributions are well accepted and rewarded by reputed national and international organizations, all the relevant references are already incorporated. Rida Fatima12 — Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Rida Fatima12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Search for "Syed Imtiaz Ali" ophthalmology, the result is more precise. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- google hits dont mean a thing what matters are reliably published third party sources which [13] speak for themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject Professor meets the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria as substantiated by reliable sources, some of which are stated here: 1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award at international level (APAO Award for prevention of blindness in asia pacific region 2010), reference is cited in the article. 2. The person is the Fellow of "College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan", which is a internationally prestigious academic institution, reference is cited in the article. 3. The subject professor has held the Chair of "Dean Faculty of Surgery and Allied sciences" from 2009 to 2012, "Director Academics" in 2013 and currently holding the chair of Professor of Ophthalmology at SMBB Medical University Larkana. 4. The subject's research has made significant impact in the field of Ophthalmology. His research articles are published in well recognized Ophthalmic Journals, references are cited in the article. Meeting only one criterion is sufficient according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to retain this article, however the subject meets most of the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ophthalmic tutor (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the sources that are cited and provided do not establish the notabilty, in the sources, only name of the subject is mentioned, there is no significant article written by independent third party. Recently added source to support award, seems no highly prestigious academic award?. Justice007 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's name shows the proof of the claims made in the article. The award mentioned in the article is highly prestigious, and internationally recognized, the Asia pacific academy of Ophthalmology has more than 13 member countries including Japan and China. The criticism by Justice007 is totally injustice and biased. I think the discussion is fairly clear and should be concluded with keeping this article. Shahnawaz Mugheri 16:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Shahnawaz Mugheri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
CommentProfessor Syed Imtiaz Ali Naqvi is a noble person and a well known scholar of Pakistan, In Feb 2014 I traveled only to hear and learn from him and was satisfied with his teachings, the topic which I learned from him was "Fundoscopic Examination in patients with chronic hypertension”^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice005 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Justice005 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^ http://www.phlpk.org/images/symposium2014/SYMPOSIUM%20REPORT.pdf

Comment I saw Professor Syed Imtiaz Ali Naqvi's some excellent researches in the form of photographs on Wikipedia some time ago but as I have opened this page they are no more available. Now we have to look for other sources to benefit from his innovations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice005 (talk • contribs)
Comment Subject of the article fulfills the Wikipedia criteria of notability. Don't know why this talk has took so long to conclude?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dur e Najaf Shujaat (talk • contribs) 14:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — Dur e Najaf Shujaat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment I am feeling honoured to comment on Professor Syed Imtiaz ali Naqvi Esq. He is a well known expert of eye diseases nationally and internationally. I know him from the comments of hundreds of people from Pakistan and other countries who met him, got treatment from him and attended his lectures and scientific meetings. I can only say that Wikipedia is fortunate to contain his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliraza91056 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — Aliraza91056 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment when this article is deleted for lack of notability despite the swarm of self admitted COI spi editors, there should be made a general sweep of articles looking for spam references to this guys work that they have been plugging into a gazzillion eye related articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Please look at the request on the page by Wikipedia lovers that citations may be added instead of URLs as URLs may rot. I am helping Wikipedia and responding to the request. Please use sensible language thanks, and by the way it was your request too which I have acknowledged and also thanked you already if you find time to see the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice005 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete it Searching on internet I found there's no one with this name known. Even if he's a known personality this article should deleted because of really very poor editing and images are not licensed and references are not actually showing the quality which Wikipedia stands for. I think this article shows no importance to be on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashutosh4422 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a researcher and an author of a book on Ophthalmology, he is a notable academician and has held many chairs in various institutions. Not being able to find him on internet is no logical reason to delete this article. This article will help visitors on Wikipedia to benefit from the researches and inventions of the subject, which they are unable to find on other places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dur e Najaf Shujaat (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — Dur e Najaf Shujaat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC and is simply part of a massive promotional campaign. all of the cites are primary sources, no third party notice and none of the items cited is inherently notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article as notability and importance is clearly proved by editors, I will add one suggestion to improve this article by changing the Display title from Syed Imtiaz Ali Naqvi to Syed Imtiaz Ali Shah.Facilitator 14 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC) — Facilitator 14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- please point out what "proof" has been provided. all of the sources are primary and none of the primary sources establish an award or whatnot that by itself establishes notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the apparent crowdsourcing of support here, I see nothing in the sources that suggests the notability standard has been reached - QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 22:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retain This article in itself is a significant source of knowledge from southeast Asia, I have searched the citations, primary and secondary sources incorporated in this article,these are enough and reliable. In my opinion there is no need for further discussion, the article should be retained and kept open for further improvement, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson wright (talk • contribs) 12:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The awards, references and sources cited on this page are reliable and establish Notability criteria of Wikipedia, therefore the tags of deletion consideration may be removed. During my visit of subcontinent in 2007 , I participated in the ceremony in which The Professor was decorated with top most Pakistani award ^[1] Hamilton bailay (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

none of the "awards" nor even the organizations that give them are notable and so you are incorrect in asserting that they establish notability. the references are all to primary sources that have an affiliation with the subject and therefore are of zero value in establishing notablity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no any single reliable source that covers the subject's research significantly impacting in its scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as described in wiki rules. Just mentioning the subject's name does not establish the notability. It seems to me there is being imposed voting pratice rather consensus.Justice007 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tejaswi Madivada[edit]

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

Too soon? She just started films recently. Lets wait a while. I think she could become a name someday. Wgolf (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD Tejaswi Madivada

Keep - Meets WP:NACTOR and general notable guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cutest Penguin- Found quite a few sources [14][15][16], Passes GNG & NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Okay well she has had a lot of roles in her first year-I think the thing that threw me off was her years active. Wgolf (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs per Cutest Penguin.Passes WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; withdrawn by nominator (non-admin close). St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AKA (rapper)[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NMUSIC, non-notable musician. Unreliable sources~~ JMHamo (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN JMHamo (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominating this article for deletion is a waste of time. The subject has received too many awards and gotten too many coverage in reliable sources. Advice to the nominator: Please make sure you do a Google search before nominating an article for deletion. Here are reliable sources: Rolling Stone, Times Live, City Press, Clutch Magazine, IOL, IOL, allAfrica.com, MTV IGGY, XXL Magazine. He has been nominated for the Channel O Music Video Awards, MTV Africa Music Awards, South African Music Awards and SA Hip Hop Awards, among others. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill (Boulder)[edit]

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

This page is the definition of WP:OR and it is unlikely that any sources can be found that would change that. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know how the nom jumped to such a brash conclusion when it only took a second or two googling to find sources supporting a lot of what's in the article, not to mention this neighborhood's notability. [17][18][19] Was WP:BEFORE not followed? Even the Boulder Convention and Visitor's Bureau has a page dedicated to it. [20] I'd be open for this to be moved to its official name, University Hill (Boulder) ("University Hill" is a disamb page). --Oakshade (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Should probably be moved to University Hill (Boulder, Colorado) or to Hill District (Boulder Colorado). But see Hill District neighborhood listing, and see this coverage of the University Hill riot of 1997. It's a notorious / notable area! --do ncr am 22:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Noms should not speculate about sources, they need to do a search WP:BEFORE nominating. Sources are readily available. WP:OR is not a valid reason to delete. ~KvnG 13:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are available contrary to nominators statement.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7. Hut 8.5 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Rembold[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not meet criteria in WP:BIO ubiquity (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Stesmo (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga puja[edit]

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

No assertion of notability Kevin McE (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was WP:BEFORE done? [21], [22], [23], [24] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable based on the above-cited sources. Obviously, article needs to be expanded and sourced, but it ought to be salvaged, not sunk. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good job User:Nvvchar. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor nomination. I suggest a speedy withdraw @Kevin McE: to save yourself from further embarrassment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article meets the general notability guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indroneel Mukherjee (Fashion Designer)[edit]

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

Don't see any notability really, he has a website but it looks like basically someone who is just doing fashion and nothing else. Wgolf (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Nothing has changed one bit since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indroneel Mukherjee happened. This is a recreation of a deleted article and I notice that the same creator also recreated the previously deleted article Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence (FFACE). Mabalu (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've spotted that the creator also tried to create this page (twice!) at Indroneel Mukherjee (IM) too - both were speedy-deleted. Can we salt? Mabalu (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Significant changes has been made in the article and notable reference has been added such as The Telegraph review and Washington Bangla report on Indroneel Mukkherjee awesomeme111 18:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs)

The Telegraph "review" is simply a mention in a list of half a dozen designers who participated in one show. The Banglal article is written by the subject. Neither source is remotely acceptable as evidence of notability. Mabalu (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Mabalu on the counters you have provided. What do you think on the other two references on the article? I will try searching for more references to make it stronger for a wiki biography. awesomeme111 12:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Since you asked: Sources in article: 1) - Mention in list of other designers (as with the Telegraph "review"). The second source simply states he was one of the judges and gives a couple tiny quotes. Really next to nothing to evidence his notability. I mean, we can see that he exists but absolutely no evidence that he is notable. Mabalu (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable BlueSalix (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Rabb[edit]

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

~~Has yet to play college or pro basketball, too soon. Though I do admit this will make a good page someday. Wgolf (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The specific notability guideline for high school athletes is WP:NHSPHSATH; everyone is reminded that this is one of the rare specific notability guidelines which is intended to supersede the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and WP:NHSPHSATH is a tougher standard than GNG because of the usually local and often ephemeral nature of high school sports reputations. WP:NHSPHSATH specifically requires "substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Well thing is you never know what could happen once they are done with high school, he might go continue on or as far as we know he could become a doctor instead! It just seems to fall too soon. Now I'm not sure how to handle this to be honest. Wgolf (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy, Wgolf. Either the subject satisfies the requirements of WP:NHSPHSATH or he doesn't. If this article get deleted, and this kid is as good as some folks seem to think, the article will get re-created in a year or two. And there's no reason why the article can't be userfied and transferred to user space in the interim. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keeping in mind what Dirtlawyer has explained, a Google search doesn't show the substantial, independent coverage for a prolonged period of time for Ivan Rabb. There are a lot of gHits on him, yes, but those fall under WP:ROUTINE or are unreliable, bloggy-type fanboy/recruiting websites. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Nominator withdrew after more refs added; striking my vote. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum – WP:TOOSOON applies here I believe. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Sorting through the recruiting sites and blogs, I do find enough National coverage about Rabb to (barely) meet the HS notability guideline: examples here and here and here. He is a very top recruit and those guys can go either way, but to me he makes it. I wouldn't cry if this were deleted, however and the article clearly needs sources. Rikster2 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My thoughts echo those of Rikster2 immediately above. I believe that the demanding standard of WP:NHSPHSATH is satisfied by the quality and depth of the national coverage regarding the subject. I caution everyone participating in this AfD discussion who may see this as an endorsement of articles for every high school athlete who is a big-time college recruit; it's not. Rabb seems to have received strong coverage in the national media so far, and very few other college recruits are going to receive comparable coverage -- especially when Scout.com, Rivals.com, and the like are excluded for determining notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Well I would like some sources first to be honest though.Wgolf (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf, please see the three source linked in Rikster's comment above. Those are pretty solid. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Meant in the article sorry not in here. And the reason why I put this as a AFD was with a case of another article by the same editor where he was deleting the prod so I had to take the next step and did it here as well. (Which he deleted the AFD as well) Wgolf (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I get time I will put the three I found in. Life's just been hectic lately, but the point is sources do exist. Rikster2 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Added Rikster2 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-thanks for the refs he seems notable enough for me, you can understand though where I'm coming from that HS players are iffy to include or not. Wgolf (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very iffy, Wgolf. It was a good RfA to have; the notability standard for high school athletes is one that is satisfied very rarely. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jrcla2: the nom has been withdrawn due to updated references - are you willing to change your vote to !keep so this can be speedy closed? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. Nominator has withdrawn and there are no opinions for delete. In speaking toward other's thoughts toward the nom's lack of WP:BEFORE, I will suggest he study WP:NRVE and caution him that this was not a policy violation, that issues were addressable, and WP:DEL suggests that under WP:PRESERVE, other avenues of correction should be explored. Care and understanding of existing community standards and practices must be taken into account before any nomination. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Laurencena[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Kevin McE (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The expand tag on this stub indicates that content can be translated from corresponding Spanish language article. The es.Wikipedia article says that the subject was governor of a province in Argentina. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. While I can't assess Spanish language sources, my search for sources in English found hits at newspapers.com which apparently confirm that Laurencena was governor of Entre Rios Province, Argentina in the early 20th century passing WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article need to include such assertions if it is to merit inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep @Kevin McE: You appear to have a poor understanding of the concept of notability. A notable subject, regardless if one line or 150kb, will always be notable. Yes, the article should have had some content but the solution is to expand, not delete. AFD isn't an expand demand service. That it didn't occur to you that somebody who governed a state of a big country might be notable and the fact that you didn't check to see the wealth of sources is most alarming. If this continues I'll be proposing that you're banned from taking articles to AFD as you're not bothering to assess notability properly beyond short articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attempting to assess notability: I don't have to. An article can be speedily deleted if it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". I have chosen AfD rather than SD, but while an article remains in a state that would not keep it immune from SD criteria, I cannot see how it can survive AfD (see WP:DEL-REASON #1. Kevin McE (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE: If you're going to be involved with AFDs you really have to abide by WP:BEFORE, especially the D section. 85% of our articles are stubs or lacking. The solution in most cases is to expand. If you've generally tried looking in google book/highbeam/newspaper.com etc and can't find anything then when you AFD at least you can claim that you don't think it's notable. Short article most of the time doesn't mean it's not notable, it just means it hasn't been researched properly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate on the basis of shortness, I did so on the basis of failing WP:A7. If you don't think that provides a valid reason for deletion, campaign to have it removed. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't fail WP:A7. For a start it was categorized as Governors of Entre Ríos Province which should immediately twig that it might be notable, not to mention that it had a very constructive "Expand Spanish wikipedia article" tag at the top with clear instructions to translate it. Wikipedia is one big project. The intention of the article creator was to get the article translated from Spanish wikipedia, an article which you couldn't possibly think wasn't notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per the first hit in googling the man: this English language gbook ref which supports the claim that he was governor and tells us a lot more about his public and personal life. It would be easy enough to add all of it... it's PD. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Now that it does not fall foul of speedy deletion criteria, the article properly merits inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Raaymakers[edit]

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

Non-notable Dutch composer. The BLP template does not apply as this person passed away in 2013. Silverfish8088 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep One of the true pioneers of electronic music. He got some major awards, an honorary doctorate at Leiden University and was the subject of a book and a number of exhibitions and festivals - this is already in the article. References could be improved, but he is definitely notable. I removed the BLP template that Silverfish8088 inappropriately inserted a few days ago (diff). (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please sign your name next to your comments, that would be helpful. If you can provide reliable third party sources to corroborate your claims, please do! This is a basic requirement for content here. Thanks, Silverfish8088 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My name is right next to my comments, I am not quite sure what you mean by that comment. But have a look at the article itself - here are some reliable sources. The article quotes the following monograph on him: Mulder, Arjen; Brouwer, Joke (2008). Dick Raaymakers: a monograph. V2_ publishing. ISBN 978-90-5662-600-6.. Then there is the honorary doctorate ([25]) - the university describes him as 'having played a key role in the early stages of Dutch electromic music.(...) He made The Hague into one of the most important centers in the world in electro-acoustic music'. Then there are the awards: Matthijs Vermeulen Award, Witteveen+Bos Award. Here's a reference for the festival: [26]. I agree that the article could be improved with inline refs, but that is not ground for deletion. Please, follow WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. That is a basic requirement here. (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I updated the article: added a number sources dealing with him, referenced the awards. I hope that these address your concerns, Silverfish8088, Lemnaminor (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, following some much-needed improvements by User:Lemnaminor. PWilkinson (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after some good work by User:Lemnaminor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ziyaddin Magerramov[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. On his bio, first ref at http://www.dia.edu.az/ZIYEDDIN_M.php. Only an associate professor. Google Scholar turns up single entry. Simply not notable. scope_creep talk 18:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Tenured (aka "associate") professor with a significant publication record that is not captured in google's various products. azWP does a much better job of listing his publications. Given that list, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt for notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think associate professors are notable, only full strength professors. That is second best and not encyclopedia. He also works in a Public Administration academy, seemingly not a full university. He was born in mid 1940's, but still not done his habilitation, or seemed too. I don't get the notablity vibe. scope_creep talk 19:17 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:32, 31 August 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) 07:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. A long list of minor accomplishments, none seemingly rising to the level of notability, with almost no sources. No clear evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks to me as if the article has been translated from Azerbaijani, without the translator realising that what quite possibly come across as fairly obvious assertions of notability in Azerbaijan are almost meaningless to an audience from outside the old Soviet bloc. The subject's career up to 1990 was fairly obviously, whatever the official job titles, within the Communist Party's ideological apparatus - and, reading between the lines, it seems to have continued within the post-Soviet Azerbaijani equivalent. His academic position, within the successor of the Azerbaijani Communist Party's main internal training institution, is probably important to his current activities but its seniority (or lack of it) probably isn't - his "scientific" (in the sense of the German Wissenschaft) writings seem to be on the history and culture of Azerbaijan, and I would guess that his current overt role is as a public intellectual, with much of the writing being aimed generally at educated readers rather than specifically at academic ones, and with many of those readers assuming that it reflects government views. As such, he may quite likely be notable within Azerbaijan - but this can probably only be established from sources in Azerbaijani. PWilkinson (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced he was more than a middle-level Apparatchik for propaganda. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik Shah[edit]

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

Shah does not pass the notability guidelines for musicians. His conviction on criminal charges also are not covered in an indepth enough way to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 05:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 05:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 23 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There seems to be barely enough recent coverage of his Al Qaeda ties (e.g. here) to meet WP:CRIMINAL (if not WP:MUSICIAN). See also: [27] and [28] Jinkinson talk to me 20:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recent coverage, meets WP:CRIMINAL.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindred Healthcare[edit]

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

Flagged as an advert since February 2014, this article relies on regurgitated press releases and PR pieces as references. It has a massive set of COI disclosures on the talk page. Fiddle Faddle 12:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the article has problems, then it needs work, not deletion. Everyking (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed with Everyking, and it's a Fortune 500 company (that fact alone means it's a notable company). Improve it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading five words into the article shows that this topic is listed on the NYSE. With some quick mousing over the references, I found two articles from bizjournals and one from money.cnn.com. Skimming the article, I couldn't verify that this is an advertisement. The only thing I noticed is that most of the BLP info needs to have Template:CN tags added. Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rarely is a listed corporation is not-notable.-- danntm ^T _C 23:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hill and the Hillbillies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Previous AfD closed as no consensus mainly due to poor participation. Boleyn (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BAND. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added five sources to the article; these appear to be enough to show that the band meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1. Gongshow talk 23:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the sources added by Gongshow, although the sources, which are mostly about the demise of the band, verge on WP:BLP1E. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; under WP:MUSICBIO it says "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." One of the members is Evan Marshall who has been a guest musician of more than two notable ensembles (the Houston Symphony, Phoenix Symphony, and Buffalo Philharmonic). Only one member is of that prominence, but it is enough for me.Jacqke (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.(Non-administrator closure.) This debate has gone on long enough. I've been waiting for someone to close it. And I don't care if I am involved in the discussion that's just a guideline. In closing the debate, I haven't been biased and I waited until the full week was over and until others had given their opinions.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable: notability is not inherited. TheLongTone (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reason for her to be notable on her own, other than her family relationships. --Gccwang (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where else would we put her information?--Hipposcrashed (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you can create an article for Carole Middleton, as the mother of a future queen consort, you can create an article for Rosalind Cubitt, as the mother of another future queen consort, who is even much higher than Carole middleton's daughter. Also some work has been added, which she got heavily involved in, so she's not just here because of family members. (Monkelese (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my oppinion this article should be kept. This article has been viewed 1791 times since it's creation (18 June 2014). People are interested in family members of Queens and future Queens. There are many articles about other mothers of Queens or future Queens: e.g. Cecilia Bowes-Lyon, Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne, Frances Shand Kydd, Carole Middleton, Alice Sommerlath, Anna Maria Komorowska, Susan Moody. (19XAVO90 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability may not be inherited, but as an ancestor, mother even, of the next queen consort her notability is assured - it has been earned by her descendent. Chienlit (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concensus indicates that the site fails to show the required notability according to independent reliable sources. Note that the accounts of four of the keep !votes have only a single edit, all to this article, which may indicate off-wiki canvassing or sock puppetry. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChnLove[edit]

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

Article that keeps on getting its speedy deleted, it is a advertisement. And also its a strange web site for a bizarre site it seems (don't want to click on the links). Also seems to have a sock puppet problem as 2 users keep on deleting it. Wgolf (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dear Wgolf, thanks for the time reviewing the article I created and Sorry for deleting the speedy deletion notice mistakenly. I was not familiar with the wikipedia policy at that time. ChnLove page may have some issues and hope you can help with its improvement and editting. Thanks. Cracy111 (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Respectfully disagree with nomination for deletion. As stated in WP:ADMASQ, "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." This article is not Advertising because it is not "used to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an audience...to take or continue to take some action." The article contains no calls to action or attempts to persuade the reader that the company is better or worse than its competitors. The article is written from a neutral point of view, and serves as a summarized information culled from reliable source. This company is equally as significant as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match.com , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matchmaker.com ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry.com or many other online dating site lists. This page needs development rather than deletion.StephyGret (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)— StephyGret (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - To be honest, I don't know anything about this website ( I saw an ad on Google and then i came here to check for more details), in my opinion, the article is helpful to me(at least now i know what it is). And i don't think it's written like an advertisement. So I think it's ok to keep it here. Hanbrito33 (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)— Hanbrito33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don’t think this page of ChnLove should be deleted for the following reasons:

1.This page is not for promotion because it only illustrates the basic information about this website (Chnlove) in an objective manner instead of giving the exaggeration of the achievements of a company. It has verifiable resources. Also, it’s not existing to persuade readers to do something irrationally. It doesn’t try to do any harm to readers.

2.The article is not an advertisement. Referring to Template:Advert wikipedia advert template, the advert tag is for those articles directly trying to sell products to readers, and if an article is simply showing a company’s material from an overall positive perspective, it cannot be tagged as advertisement. This page is for the purpose to help build a useful page for the people who may want to have some knowledge of ChnLove. In all, the page is merely concerned with providing information coming from authoritative sources. Gratmeri (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)— Gratmeri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Notability not shown by reliable independent sources. The only sources cited are the subject's own page, Alexa (for the ranking) and a site purporting to rank international dating sites, which doesn't itself appear reliable. See WP:V and WP:RS. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to show that the site is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search reveals no substantive coverage of this site in reliable sources. Absent further evidence, this site is not notable. Dolescum (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Online Personals Watch is reliable independent source with verifiability.

1 First, the site Online Personal Watch is not a site purporting to rank international dating sites. It is the dating industry news and commentary for the Dating Industry launched by industry analyst and consultant Mark Brooks. The following are the sources: http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/online-personals-watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUDgRDw1dWo; http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/datingoffice09/markbrooks.html

2 The site Online Personal Watch and Mark Brooks have received a lot of authoritative coverage since its establishment. It has been mentioned in sites yahoo.news, usatoday, marketwatch, washingtonpost, nypost

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/is-your--lover--for-real--picking-the-wrong-online-date-could-cost-you-your-home-174643233.html#4VVtziO

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/20/dating-matchmaking-eharmony-matchcom/9276579/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-extreme-ways-to-succeed-on-dating-sites-2014-09-12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/mobile-dating-apps-grow-in-popularity/2012/08/16/29938bf8-cbc4-11e1-9986-640e8e5f844f_story.html

http://nypost.com/2009/11/29/daters-without-borders/

3 The above are just a few examples. You can find more on this page http://www.onlinepersonalswatch.com/news/in-the-press.html

Online Personal Watch is not a site purporting to rank international dating sites. Who can deny its reliability or Verifiability? This source of the ChnLove page meets the wikipedia norm WP:V and WP:RS Cracy111 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ChnLove is notable with substantive coverage in reliable sources. The page meets the Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NRV. You can find some reference and evidence to ChnLove here:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11306500 --- New Zealand Herald, a daily newspaper published in Auckland, New Zealandwith the largest newspaper circulation of any in the country

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/-150-million-dowry-for-chinese-businessman%E2%80%99s-daughter-204344553.html --- a site launched by Yahoo in 2008

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-international-china-dating-chnlove-is-creating-miracles-1337043920.html

http://dating.about.com/u/reviews/asiandating/asianLUR/Jericho-s-chnlove-Review.htm

The site is notable enough to have a page on wikipedia just like many other dating sites on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_dating_websites. It needs development rather than deletion. Sorry to post twice and I don't mean to add "Keep" votes. They are just two different points.Cracy111 (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I searched Chnlove, I found this page. In my opinion, it should stay. I know the site Online personals watch mentioned by Cracy111. Online Personals Watch is a respected source of information in the dating industry. Alexa is a California-based subsidiary company of Amazon.com which provides commercial web traffic data and is visited by over 8.8 million people monthly: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/alexa.com. They are certainly reliable sources for establishing notability. Moreover, the page is about the subject ChnLove and it is useful to add a link to the official website. So visitors can learn more about Chnlove after reading this wikipedia page.

Those are just my opinion Billhamus (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — Billhamus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete As per nom ,RHaworth and Dolescum not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, author request. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy tchouague[edit]

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

Bio of a footballer. Repeatedly deleted as an advert under different casing variant, ultimately while the language may be fixed, the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - pure vanity piece, non-notable subject. Deleted multiple times before. Giant Snowman 20:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to create this article - Marcosantos2014 , 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm still having issues about this Billy tchouague, can somebody help me to create this article properly in order to fit wikipedia policy or tell me what i have to do to make this article properly according to wikipedia policies and guidelines ? i'm newbie right here, please don't delete this article. Many thanks in advance. Marcosantos2014 , 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Marcosantos. Here is what to do: To write a Wikipedia article, pick a different subject. To write about Billy tchouague, pick a different website. I'm sorry to have to tell you, Billy tchouague does not appear notable enough for an encyclopedia article no matter how you do it. —teb728 t c 11:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Alternative outlets lists some websites that accept pages like yours that are not appropriate for Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you teb728, i appreciated it. I made some changes on that article (Billy tchouague) it's better now? - Marcosantos2014 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete Based on how the title Billy Tchouague is already salted. —Frosty ☃ 23:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't read notability guideline for association football players before i write my artcile (as a newbie here) and just realize now that my article was not really notable because Billy tchouague hasn't played in a Fully professional league as only Ekstraklasa is recognized as a Fully professional league in Poland , you can delete this article but please allow me to create it in future when Billy tchouague will play in Fully professional league . Marcosantos2014 , 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Haniger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mitch Haniger

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

Minor league baseball player, who fails WP:MLB/N immediately. Best case of stub in club's minor league players article, but not stand alone article currently. If MLB appearance is made, then recreate. PROD removed on claim to WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the coverage from AZ Central, MLB.com, The Tribune, The Birmingham News, and Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (these are just a few examples) are sufficient to establish GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: Above user is the one who contested the PROD, as well as created the original article and seems to be the only major contributor. GauchoDude (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does this bear on the discussion? Rlendog (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above stated reasons. GauchoDude (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is your delete vote, you don't need to add this on top of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a run of the mill type player that clearly passes GNG to me.--Yankees10 18:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious as to how you define a non run of the mill player. He's not even a top 100-150 prospect, let alone a Major League player. And that's per MLB.com, Baseball America, ESPN/Keith Law (req sub), Fangraphs, Baseball Prospectus, Minor League Ball/John Sickels, etc. GauchoDude (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Run of the mill players don't get the level of coverage Haniger has received. He may not be a "top 100-150 prospect", but he's still a prospect and has received coverage from multiple publications as a result of his on-field accomplishments. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no MLB appearances. Only a minor league player, thousands of them scattered through history and undeserving of an encyclopedic article. 1st round pick which could predict future MLB success but wiki is not WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing done yet to become article worthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.176 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he does not meet WP:MLB/N, he has received significant coverage in multiple mainstream media outlets, as set forth in the article and in Muboshgu's comments above so as to pass WP:GNG. The standard under GNG is not whether you, me or anyone else would subjectively view him as "run of the mill." GNG is an objective standard, and multiple independent media outlets have exercised their editorial judgment in determining that he is noteworthy. That is what matters under GNG. Cbl62 (talk)
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Solid !vote for keeping this article based on significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. I would like to compliment Muboshgu: that's what significant coverage is supposed to look like in a GNG discussion. Several solid feature articles about the subject in mainstream news and sports publications -- not stats sites, not recruiting sites, not draft prospects sites, not random one and two-sentence mentions, not WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage that mentions the subject's game performance or even quotes the subject, not obscure minor league sports sites. I would also like to endorse the comments of Cbl62 above: GNG is an objective standard based on the quality and depth of media coverage, not based on the MLB prospects of the athlete. If significant coverage is there, the subject is notable for Wikipedia purposes. If the coverage is marginal, other factors including common sense can (and arguably should) come into play. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Muboshgu, Cbl62 , and Dirtlawyer1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the general notability guidelines have been met. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nusimow[edit]

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

CEO of minor company. I note the 2nd reference is not from Technology Review, but from something called http://www.health-science-degree.com, which appears to be a PR source. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional as well, WP:COI by the author (same name as the company). We may also wish to consider AfD on Daniel Kivatinos as well, created at the same time, same company and position.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Worsley[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Minor roles only. (according to the IMdB article on Nashville, he appeared as a "background singer" in 4 episodes--he's not even mentioned in our List of Nashville cast members. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete for lack of 3rd party RELIABLE sources. IMDB is not a reliable source, and the two other sources are blogs - one in Italy, and one in the UK (and since his "fame" is in the US, these aren't very convincing) LaMona (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shurima[edit]

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

Article is inaccurate, which could be corrected, but in my opinion it also fails WP:Notability. Subject is a combination of a non-notable in-universe location and a non-notable event. Richard Yin (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise, Shurima refers to an in-universe location whose history is part of the story behind the event in question. The article's apparent subject, the game mode Ascension, is an event lasting two weeks: [29]. --Richard Yin (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article describes not Shurima itself, but rather the game mode, "Ascension", that takes place in Shurima. Not only does the subject fail WP:N, the very basis of the article is misinformed. Lord Bromblemore 01:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2004 match stats[edit]

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

Not necessary to have statistics of all the matches. Also, no other tournaments has a match statistics article. Arbero (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - massive WP:NOTSTATS violation. Giant Snowman 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS . Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neural Workflow[edit]

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

Recommend speedy deletion. Topic fails notability, Google books returns only four entries. The only external reference is a half-baked blog entry. The article is probably comprised only of original research. The text of the article is basically nonsense. Chandler321 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research.Frmorrison (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom, no RS coverage of this original research concept.Dialectric (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Insufficient WP:RS to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passerby (EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any third party coverage. My search only came up with lyrics and download sites. Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014[edit]

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

Per arguments given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Stintz mayoral campaign, 2014 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Soknacki mayoral campaign, 2014, I propose that Rob Ford's campaign article also be deleted. With Ford out of the race, there is little else to add to this article, and what's here is already included in Ford's bio or repeated in the other campaign articles, or should be merged to Toronto mayoral election, 2014. Ivanvector (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He was clearly a notable candidate. Kingjeff (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's proposing that the main article about Rob Ford himself be deleted. But his campaign does not need a separate article from the one on him as an individual — no mayoral candidate in any city on earth, even much larger ones than Toronto, has ever qualified for this treatment before, and Toronto's current election is not the place to create a new precedent for this approach. By all means, the relevant content can be added to Rob Ford and Toronto mayoral election, 2014 — but we don't need an BLP about him and a separate article about his campaign. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he is clearly a notable candidate, but that doesn't make each of his campaigns notable. There is nothing here that can't be covered in his biography, mostly because the campaign doesn't need to be covered in this level of detail. Wikipedia is not a newspaper that needs to cover every stump speech or campaign event of every mayoral race of every candidate in the world. This is Pokemon-esque fan-cruft. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not all of campaigns are notable. I don't believe his campaigns as city councillor are notable. They don't meet WP:GNG. However, his campaigns for mayor do meet the requirements. Kingjeff (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Ivanvector, the article has very few edits over the last few months. Therefore, the amount that can be added can be quite significant. Kingjeff (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article already covers a range of pointless minutiae including (seemingly) every minor policy announcement or opinion Ford ever muttered while on the campaign trail. It's a coat-rack for campaign trivia and we shouldn't be adding more. Every local council/mayoral campaign is covered in local media for local constituents. The only difference here is that Ford's alleged crack smoking means that this gets a line or two in national or international media. But the substance of the campaign (the substance of the article) is almost entirely local, sourced to local news sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in both the Karen Stintz and David Soknacki discussions, a separate spinoff article about an individual candidate's campaign in a municipal election is not the kind of thing we need on Wikipedia. While we've allowed this type of thing for presidential campaigns in the United States, there has never been any consensus to extend that to municipal offices in any country. Bill de Blasio doesn't have one of these, Rahm Emanuel doesn't have one of these, Eric Garcetti doesn't have one of these, Boris Johnson doesn't have one of these, Klaus Wowereit doesn't have one of these, Bertrand Delanoë doesn't have one of these — why would Toronto warrant separate articles about each individual mayoral candidate's individual campaign if New York City and Chicago and Los Angeles and London and Berlin and Paris don't? Any content that's worth keeping should be merged directly into Rob Ford and/or Toronto mayoral election, 2014, but this article should be deleted. And that still goes for Olivia Chow mayoral campaign, 2014 and John Tory mayoral campaign, 2014, too — the fact that their campaigns are still active as of today still doesn't justify spinning off a triple layer of municipal election articles. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary level of detail for a municipal election campaign. Should be briefly covered in the election article in a "Campaign" section (which is currently missing) and the article about Ford himself. Number 5 7 14:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needless content fork and urge people to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Toronto mayoral campaigns and weigh in on the remaining two mayoral campaign articles. Downwoody (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've never had individiual articles for individuals who actually do run for mayor in local elections - let alone those that consider running but drop out. This article was massively out of date, and had barely been touched for months, even before this wife-beating racist dropped out of the campaign. There is plenty of space in the somewhat meagre Toronto mayoral election, 2014 to add information about the campaigns of the leading candidates. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And rewrite / improve, obviously. Sandstein 16:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schütte-Lanz G.IV[edit]

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

completely Non-notable, the aircraft never existed (only as a project) and the article, as written, is gobbledy gook, barely mentioning the subject anyway Petebutt (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incoherence derives from the fact this is a not very good translation from German Wikipedia, and it was also placed at an incorrect title. This article translates all but the first sentence of de:Schütte-Lanz G.I-V, and is about a whole series of aircraft designs, 1 through 5. The German article provides a further reference documenting the notability of the topic. Unfortunately for context, we also lack an article in English on the company: Schütte-Lanz redirects to List of Schütte-Lanz airships, but the German de:Schütte-Lanz has a table of the company's airplane/aeroplane designs (Flugzeuge), from which it can be seen that G.I was built but the others in the G series remained on the drawing board; this is the territory covered by this article. If kept as I hope it will be, the article should be moved and given a clear introduction, in addition to having the translation touched up and additional links provided for information. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move Schütte-Lanz G.I, as very well-explaine dby Yngvadottir. A ((trout)) (again) to Pete for not paying attention to what the article actually says, as well as implying that "not built = non-notable" (which is entirely not the case). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TROUT firmly rejected. All that I say in the nomination is correct. Most of the info is already incorporated in Schütte-Lanz G.I, so why have a very poorly written article on a non-existent subject with information already in another article.--Petebutt (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs tidying and expansion. A post at WT:AIR would be a first stop for assistance, AfD is a last resort. We have many articles on aircraft design projects that did not materialise, Hawker Siddeley HS.141 is an example. I can help with German translations and creating an article on the Schütte-Lanz company, what is there is a true translation, just not using optimum grammar. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete I have re-written the article with all the information known aboutr the G.IV. Teh rest is up to you--Petebutt (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency). No prejudice to anybody undoing the close if it's deemed inappropriate. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 17:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hanley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted in a previous AfD and re-created with no discussion. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD: Hanley does not meet WP:POLITICIAN Bondegezou (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article was (re)created by User:Rathfelder, who has created similar articles for several other Labour Party candidates. I have PROD'd several and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Heald is also ongoing. I've put a note on his/her Talk page, but would welcome further review from other editors. Bondegezou (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable candidate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Is not a notable candidate for office. Tiller54 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and has no other visible claim to notability; no reason to overturn previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply being an as-yet-unelected candidate in an ongoing or future election is not, in and of itself adequate notability to justify a Wikipedia article under WP:NPOL — either you demonstrate that the candidate was already notable enough to qualify for an article under a different inclusion criterion before they were named a candidate, or they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the creator of this article has changed it to a re-direct to the constituency (at my suggestion, as a way to preserve work done should the individual become notable at a later date). Should we wind up the AfD? Bondegezou (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Air Europa Flight 41[edit]

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

Not notable WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS etc. etc. Petebutt (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable incident, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I sure wouldn't have wanted to be on that plane, but happily there were no fatalities and, at the moment, this incident does not appear to warrant its own article per WP:GNG. Given the substantial damage to the aircraft, mention is appropriate (and is already present) at Air Europa, and possibly could be added to Ministro Pistarini International Airport. If this incident leads to any significant changes in procedures about landing in the middle of a hailstorm (!), we could revisit it. --15:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete Not notable--Nockayoub (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the news, It is practice not to have articles for every aviation incident.-- danntm ^T _C 23:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable even for a mention in related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William 20:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock24 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was redirect (Non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khalsa Sporting Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is a fourth-level soccer club in Canada (not even close to professional). Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with you on this one, Walter. The PCSL is notable, and other teams' Wikipedia entries are notable, so why not this one? Greg Salter (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Greg. The league is notable, but not all of the teams inherit that notability. For instance, a band may be notable, but not all of their albums may be. A writer may be notable, but not the publications. There have been several instances of teams in this league and the third division League1 Ontario and the former third division Canadian Soccer League where the team did not achieve GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pacific Coast Soccer League, no evidence of independent notability but a possible search term. Giant Snowman 07:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per GS, non-notable amateur team, no indication of team has participated at a level to fulfil WP:FOOTYN let alone GNG.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Langley Athletic FC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is a fourth-level soccer club in Canada (not even close to professional). Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pacific Coast Soccer League, no evidence of independent notability but a possible search term. Giant Snowman 07:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per GS, non-notable amateur team, no indication of team has participated at a level to fulfil WP:FOOTYN let alone GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A9, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi (Npk twice song)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NMUSIC, sources are unreliable JMHamo (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of the sources cited don't actually support the statements that they are being cited for, and some of the sources don't mention this song or its artist at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Article is a mess Gbawden (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SARVAJANIK GANESHOTSAV MANDAL, RAMNAGAR[edit]

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

A non-notable group failing WP:GNG. PROD contested without providing reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per non notable group. It's look like a promotion page. Prateek Malviya^•✉•✎ 11:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lede is almost, if not exactly, copied from Ganesha Chaturthi, which is so unrelated at first sight an A7 might be justified. A good start to secure a keep is to rewrite that, and at least give some kind of literal translation for that title. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav means the public celebration of Ganesha Chaturthi. And Mandal means group. Ramnagar is a locality somewhere in Mumbai. So its the group of Ramnagar for celebrating Ganesha Chaturthi. In Maharashtra state, especially in western parts of it, such various small small groups are formed in localities; they set up a temporary pandal for worshipping the Ganesha during the 10-11 days festival. There is nothing notable about each of these groups in individual. Although there are some groups which are notable and one of them is Lalbaugcha Raja. Five more mandals that I would call notable are mentioned in the article Culture of Pune and they don't necessarily warrant separate articles either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thank you. Sounds like just some typical local co-op group and hence leaning to delete for NN, unless of course better sources appear. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 11:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meets general notable guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source for notability. Ch an der 14:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Delete~~- As per nomination while this article also lacks WP:IRS, even a simple google does not showing much results — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sycamore Pictures[edit]

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

Non-notable production company lacking non-trivial support. A search of Google brings up only minor articles or articles about the company's product. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. reddogsix (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some references and expanded the content. It should be noted that this company has produced one of the Robin Williams films that will be released posthumously. Risker (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added additional material and sourcing. This production company has brought out three notable films - pretty remarkable for such a young company. --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Noble[edit]

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

a b-movie actress with just 2 roles. Now I don't mind seeing b-movie stars with pages to be honest, but at least have some notability with them or mentioned. So in this case, Noble is just not notable! Wgolf (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete:- Nothing too much significant, my vote will be delete.Ireneshih (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only available source appears to be IMDB, which would be OK as an external link but not as evidence of notability. Even here the subject has two roles listed, neither prominent. Only one of the films even has an article here and the subject's role is listed as "receptionist". Hut 8.5 06:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above fails NACTOR –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After being relisted twice there isn't a consensus to delete. Further, @IronGargoyle: makes some valid points regarding it passing WP:GNG. No prejudice towards speedy renomination if an individual who speaks Korean is unable to come up with sourcing. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phaethon (roller coaster)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY. This was prodded, but removed as editor said there seem to be sources in Korean. I found an external link in the German-language article (which just confirms its existence, not its notability). The French-language version has only a dead link as a reference. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is the first of a particular coaster type in a country. It is a major coaster that is not mass-produced. The article already has a reliable, independent source in RCDB.com. To find the other articles on the coaster you actually have to do a Google search using Korean characters (파에톤 "롤러 코스터"). Chrome's auto-translate tool is particularly crappy with Korean, so I can't make much use of these sources, but I imagine that an editor who was more familiar with Korean would be able to put them to good use. Here is a selection of examples that seem to be from independent (and, as best as I can tell, reliable) sources: [30], [31]. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IronGargoyle.--Dom497 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M. Gahlinger[edit]

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

no reliable sources, no verifiability Mwinog2777 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His entire history and the history of his family cannot be verified. All references are to a book out of print from 1952 or to his own memoir. NO reliable references are listed. This article's history does not meet any Wikipedia guidelines. In addition I would question whether or not he could be considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia page based upon his books.Mwinog2777 (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some things can be verified (or at least sourced). According to The Milwaukee Sentinel, his father was (or at least claimed to be) a captain of the Swiss Guard,[32] and he is a doctor who has published books and articles, though an example of the latter isn't particularly earthshattering ("Cabin Location and the Likelihood of Motion Sickness in Cruise Ship Passengers"). However, the most significant verifiable thing about him is that he was stripped of his Utah medical license for prescribing controlled substances.[33] All in all, that doesn't satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree with above as well as comments made on the April 2011 tag: the article needs citations; the article relies on primary sources; the author acknowledged working in conjunction with the subject; the style is not encyclopedic. Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Club Drugs has been cited 108 times, Computer Programs has been cited 101 times, and Illegal Drugs has been cited 67 times per Google Scholar. Not sure that's enough for WP:ACADEMIC, but I expect WP:AUTHOR might work. I'll see if I can dig up some reviews. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Drugs reviewed in the AORN Journal (Association of periOperative Registered Nurses) and Annals of Emergency Medicine.

Knapp, Nancy (August 2005). "Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to Their History, Chemistry, Use, and Abuse [review]". AORN. 82 (2): 581–582. doi:10.1016/S0001-2092(06)60324-4.(subscription required)
Weltge, Arlo (May 2002). "Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to Their History, Chemistry, Use and Abuse [review]". Annals of Emergency Medicine. 39 (5): 581–582. doi:10.1067/mem.2002.123297.(subscription required) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three reviews of Computer Programs in the peer-reviewed literature. Changed my !vote to keep.

Franco, Eduardo L. (July 2003). "Computer Programs for Epidemiologists–PEPI Version 4.0 [review]" (PDF). Epidemiology. 14 (4).
Pai, Madhukar; McCulloch, Michael (2002). "Computer Programs for Epidemiologists: PEPI Version 4.0" (PDF). American Journal of Epidemiology. 155 (8).
Llorca, J. (2002). "Computer programs for epidemiologists. PEPI v. 4.0 [review]". Journal of Epidemiological Community Health. 56: 959–960. doi:10.1136/jech.56.12.959-c.

Keep - agree with Lesser Cartographies that publications with >100 citations are notable.128.125.52.41 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I actually said, but whatever.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: My initial reasons for deletion included lack of citations, use of primary sources, style and closeness of writer to subject. If kept in because of notability the article should be totally rewritten by an independent editor, using only verified, non-primary information. Short of that it should be deleted because of above problems. If all that is required to be notable is a couple of scientific articles with a certain number of citations, OK, but whole article should be independently written to meet Wiki criteria. Otherwise, it is an inadequate encyclopedic entry.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Coltrane House. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Coltrane Cultural Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

DOes not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. First AfD closed as no consensus due to having only two responses. As this is its second AfD and it has been tagged for notability for over six years, I hope that this time it can be fully resolved, and will be relisted several times until it is sorted. Boleyn (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with John Coltrane House?? The Society was apparently instrumental in getting the house into the National Registry. The society thus played a role, which is now cited/referenced. I cannot tell from the article or from web search if the society is even still in existence... --—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge may be a valid option. Boleyn (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with John Coltrane House. If I had noticed that such an article existed, my view on the first AfD would have been for the merge rather than a Weak Keep. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into John Coltrane House as that is what most of the sources regarding the society discuss.-- danntm ^T _C 18:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with John Coltrane House As per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madhva Kanva Mutt[edit]

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

This does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE. However, there are so many issues with this article, that it is possible I am not seeing the wood for the trees, so I chose not to use prod. Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article failing WP:N and WP:V both. CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The concerns of the nominator seem to have been addressed through improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 10:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Slinger[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. This has been tagged for notability for over six years. The LA Times ref is really about her notable husband. It all seems to fall on whether a book she apparently co-wrote, Sexual Secrets is a notable book, and if so, whether her co-writing it counts; unclear if her main contribution was illustrations, and if so how that counts. If all that works out, she might meet WP:AUTHOR #3: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Boleyn (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable artist, author, references suggest meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though article isn't helped by some of the very dubious sourcing with laughably brief mentions. However, the 2012 NYT article indicates she's been 'on the scene' since the early 70s and I can see other relaible articles online, for example [34], [35] and [36]. Sionk (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 21:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Top 40 number-one singles of 2014[edit]

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

List of number-ones of a dubious and unreliable Media Traffic chart, also listed at WP:BADCHARTS. Widr (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:24, 29 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To the extent that this is regurgitating a particular chart, I see no evidence that that chart itself enjoys notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above arguments, and also, this seems to be written a bit like an advertisement for the URLs linked in the article. Certainly it at least has a bit of a promotional tone to it. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Top 40 number-one singles of 2013[edit]

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

List of number-ones of a dubious and unreliable Media Traffic chart, also listed at WP:BADCHARTS. Widr (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:24, 29 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:V. Source is unreliable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Top 40 number-one singles of 2012[edit]

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

List of number-ones of a dubious and unreliable Media Traffic chart, also listed at WP:BADCHARTS. Widr (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gongshow talk 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:23, 29 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Research Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability - I see a press release, an interview with Naik, but a search turned up nothing that discussed it in any depth. I tried to redirect but was reverted. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I don't agree with it. From the past 15 years to till now, IRF has successfully organized more than 500 Islamic confererences as well as with The Oxford Union in 2011. At present, it is one of the top three Islam preaching organizations ranked by middle east in the world. Hence, undoughtedly it has the required notablity to remain in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Sharif uddin (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharif uddin: The subject does not have significant coverage in reliable source it is only based on self-published sources. CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please read WP:ORG then and make sure the article meets those requirements. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of significance. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Disagree~~ The reliable sources are given below:

^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

^ file:///C:/Users/HP/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Low/Content.IE5/IRC0P96C/GoldMedalRecepients%5B1%5D.pdf
^ "From YRF to IRF: Murcyleen strives for women's dignity". Greater Kashmir. Retrieved 08-09-2014. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
^ "Yash Chopra bollywood to Zakir Naik hijab: such a short journey". The Indian Express. Retrieved 08-09-2014. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
^ "One peace fits all". The Indian Express. Retrieved 08-09-2014. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
^ "A 10 days Islamic International Peace Conference Organised by IRF". YouTube. Retrieved 08-09-2014. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

I have added them in the article. Sharif uddin (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharif uddin: See WP:IRS None of your above mentioned links are reliable source except the IndianExpress and greaterkashmir (I am sure about greaterkashmir), which again lacks significant coverage. Generally self published sources such as social networking references, youtube, and personal website is not considered to be reliable sources. CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CutestPenguin, there are some more recent leading newspaper's links here. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

^ Rajindar Sachar (1–15 September 2014). "First all-women conf. in the Valley". The Milli Gazette. Retrieved 2014-09-10.
^ "Zakir Naik's wife to address a seminar at KU on Aug 1o". Kashmir Observer. August 07, 2014. Retrieved 2014-09-10. ((cite news)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Dr Zakir Naik layak digelar Ahmad Deedat 2". Sinar Harian. Retrieved 10-09-2014. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^ Tanvir Usman (August 30, 2014). "Orators are not made, they are born". The Gulf Today. Retrieved 2014-09-10.
^ Khurram Rasool (1–15 September 2014). "From Bollywood to Islam: A romantic film director's death takes Kashmir's Murcyleen to 'enlightenment' The 23-year-old woman is now an Islamic orator with Zakir Naik's IRF". kashmir reader. Retrieved 2014-09-10.

I have also added them in the article. Sharif uddin (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by 'disagree' you mean "Keep", which I presume you do, you can only say this once. What we normally do is 'comment' - eg *Comment and then what we want to say. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was waiting to see if anyone could find sources discussing this organisation in depth before commenting again. I've looked at all of the ones added by Sharif uddin - none of them actually discuss the Foundation. They mention it briefly, or discuss a conference held by the Foundation, but they do not actually discuss the Foundation. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject lacks significant coverage in the reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ^[1]

^ "Dr Zakir Naik to donate Dh1m award money". Khaleej Times. september, 2013. Retrieved 2014-09-17. ((cite news)): Check date values in: |date= (help)

It is mentioned in the link above that, "The Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) founded by Dr Zakir Naik runs popular schools and supports the development of the Peace TV network. More than 500 employees work for the research foundation. His future plans include opening a new school in Dubai by 2015 with an expected capacity for 2,500 students."(see 18th section of the article) I think, this is a better discussion about the foundation. I am adding it now in the article. Sharif uddin (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dougweller and Cutest Penguin and fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability Atsme☯^Consult 17:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charge (game)[edit]

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

Non-notable game. No independent sources. Probably made up. A PROD was tried, but it was removed. —teb728 t c 03:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, sources are all self-published. --Drm310 (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Snowball speedy delete, even. Something someone made up one day. Sources (Facebook and a wiki) are neither reliable nor independent, so the conditions laid out in WP:GNG have not been met. Not even close. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:OR. Neil916 (Talk) 04:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bangerz. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do My Thang[edit]

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

Non-notable track per WP:NSONGS as there is no secondary coverage outside of album reviews. Should db deleted or redirected to Bangerz. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination to the parent album. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangerz; article fails WP:NSONGS due to a general lack of coverage outside of album reviews. Holiday56 (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing this as a keep for now but have no problems if the nom wants to renominate in the next 3/4 months (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Cash[edit]

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

Had its moment of fame, no long term notability. James^x12345 10:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may have been a fad lasting only a few months, but it was not a single event. I see significant coverage about it from important, national-level sources in the US (Los Angeles Times, Today) and the UK (The Telegraph). That's enough for notability IMO, and notability is not temporary. Right now the references are not cited in proper format; if the article is kept I will fix that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant amount of coverage and discussion. — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relist later coverage is still too recent to know if this will be a lengthy fad or a fart in the wind.--Otterathome (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marchex[edit]

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

Non notable company. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Not eligible for PROD, apparently. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:

I'm in need of quick research on this company. As such the article could have been helpful. However, it fails to tell me what I need to know in plain English, which is, WTF do they do???? I'd say keep it. It's traded through NASDAQ. 32.214.171.44 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksa Nehrebets'kyi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional autobiography of a Ukrainian<-->English translator. A biography of a living person needs better refs than another language wikipedia. The Ukrainian article's refs don't seem to be unquestionably reliable, so I can't steal them. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chamberlin[edit]

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

Alleged be having some success as an artist (well, at least, putting a high value on his paintings) but the awards aren't at all major and the press attention is fleeting (for example gong out with a well known woman, being profiled in a list of several West End artists). Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Sionk (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could find no sources that show subject meets WP:ARTIST. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Banko-Stewart[edit]

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

Lack of WP:RS in article, and after searching, no evidence of WP:SIGCOV found. Appears to fail WP:NACTORS & WP:GNG as I failed to find any independent coverage regarding roles she appeared in. Roberticus talk 13:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G6 - ((db-disambig)) covers this. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hariakhan Baba (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Okay I put this as a db-disambiguation but that seems to not be where it go-so I decided to do this as it is apparently a misuse of a disam page Wgolf (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete G12. Foundational, and from a source that predates the article by six years. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muriel Peterson Robinson-Edgar[edit]

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

Articles target fails to appear to meet WP:NOTE Amortias (T)(C) 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a pretty close copy of this obituary. Also, the pic may have copyright problems too. ubiquity (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 18:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jorg Janke[edit]

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

Janke's company already has an article. His biography just rehashes information found in Compiere. Possible merge and/or redirect Vycl1994 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue Journal (magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. On their website are one issue in 2010 and then 1 other in 2011. Article claims that a third issue was published. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. (Article dePRODded by creator without reason stated). Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced article with no real claims of notability, a quick search does not bring up anything beyond the website and contributors/photographers plugging their own work for the magazine through blog posts etc. Mabalu (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find the sort of sourcing that would establish notability here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham Solomon[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated, lacks independent sources. The so-called "write up" in a bridal magazine is just a passing mention naming this singer who was performing at the time. Article has been tagged for notability and better sourcing since 2011 without improvement. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I share the experience of being unable to locate non-trivial coverage of Avraham Solomon in reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No secondary sources or significant coverage; does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daren Metropoulos[edit]

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

Daren Metropoulos doesn't seem to have notability as a businessperson distinct from his father's notability. Only one of the citations in the article seems to provide a basis for a notability claim, and that is his purchase of Hugh Hefner's mansion. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited and we cannot make one an article because he bought a big house. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, possibly leaning towards keep. Many if not most of the references cited in this article do not make any mention of Daren Metropoulos, which is problematic. The few sources that do mention him by name are this sort: [37] It seems to me that if we cannot locate sufficient sources now, there is a likelihood this Wikipedia article may return in the future. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in his own right. The claims for personal significance of his executive role are unsupported by third party references. The bulk of the article is about a company his family owns, not him personally. Articles such as that just cited above show nothing more than that his father gives him moeny to buy an expensive house. It is of course possible that he may become notable in the future, and that would be the time for an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Let us try one more week--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per DGG. Much of the article consists of referenced statements about the family business ("Metropoulos & Co acquired The Castle ...", "Metropoulos & Co acquired Pabst Brewing Co..."), interspersed with unreferenced statements about this person ("Daren installed a new management team ...", "Daren was appointed Co- Chief Executive Officer and played an intimate role ..."). Both should be removed; once that is done, there's little or nothing left here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forcefield Records[edit]

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

advertising and fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not advertising and does not fails notability. Notable artists and notable distributors. May need references and expansion, but still notable. --Bdboyc (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. The notability of their artists or distributor has no influence on the notability of the label. The Banner talk 22:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more references, but still notable for their large catalog. Bdboyc (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - As stated before: the artists signed by the label have no influence on the notability. It is the label itself that has to prove notability. The Banner talk 08:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Basically per nom's reply. Notability is not inherited. The vast majority of blue linked bands are to disambig pages. Only two go to actual bands, which seem to be of marginal notability themselves. There are no reliable independent sources about the record label, therefore the article fails the WP:GNG requirements. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party reliable sources with non-trivial coverage; notability is not inherited from a few marginally bands. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in literature[edit]

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

Strange combination of publishing dates and historical facts, completely unsourced. looks like WP:SYNTH. The Banner talk 20:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting, well worked, and worthwhile. Sources and references can be requested; however as an overview of the subject it is useful...Modernist (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really want to argue WP:OTHERSTUFF, but 'list of years' articles exist in most media forms here, including list of years in film, list of years in music, list of years in television and...several others, as found in this template, which is no different from those. I do not deny this needs sourcing, but that might be a simple manner of pulling out the highlight cite in each year and linking it. Nate • (chatter)
Keep To me it looks simply like a directory of "(year/century) in literature" articles, with some prose bits (so that it differentiates from solely a category). Sources can be extracted from the year/century articles per Mrschimpf. Non-partisan summaries with NPOV are not sythesis IMHO. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A summary of other notable articles. Pburka (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted (A7) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scomo Kill[edit]

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

Well I had this as a speedy earlier as it was a test. Now this could be interesting someday, but for now it just seems to be a too soon. (Though I do admit the site does sound interesting in a way) Wgolf (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunately, with only 20 subscribers and 3,080 views, this YouTube channel is unlikely to pass the notability criteria for web content, and I can't find any evidence of significant coverage. Scomos, we're not saying that your channel is bad or unimportant; it's just that there currently isn't enough information out there from newspapers, books, or reliable tech websites like PC Magazine or Ars Technica to write an article about it. Altamel (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Web content with no indication of importance. —teb728 t c 01:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7 - I've tagged it under A7 - It'll probably get declined but if we don't try we don't know!, Per above no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sorry about the finger slip there, folks. This meets WP:SK point 1. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Duckworth[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG no third party references supplied to establish notability. The only references are from her team's own website.~~ Martin451 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Considering massive expansion and improvements made by Dirtlawyer1 I am withdrawing my nomination. Martin451 16:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable college gymnastics coach of the Alabama Crimson Tide gymnastics program; the subject was also a two-time NCAA individual national champion as an undergraduate. I have added several footnotes to the article to show significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. For editors who may be unfamiliar with the subject, or American college gymnastics generally, the Alabama Crimson Tide gymnastics program is one of the three or four highest-profile college programs in the country (together with the teams from UCLA, the University of Georgia and the University of Florida). No, notability is not inherited, but in this case, significant coverage of this head coach clearly exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the subject's two individual NCAA national championships and eight All-American honors arguably satisfies the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Martin451 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 00:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turk beezy[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. I can’t find any independent reliable sources amid all the publicity. If not for his military medals (which are not what he is supposed to be important for) I would nominate this article for speedy deletion per A7. —teb728 t c 05:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with a note that a) this appears to be an autobiography and b) a similar page called Turk Beezy was deleted twice under CSD A7. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updates have been made to give more value to this article including radio airplay and worldwide information supporting the creditability of the article along with reasons for inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkBeezy19912010 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant independent coverage. While being 44th in the National Airplay Top 50 R&B/Hip-Hop Chart 9/6/2014 might help, the cited source is not recognized as a reliable source, and by itself doesn't show coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Hampden-White[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an unreferenced WP:PROMO article created by a WP:SPA used to promote only Colin Hampden-White ‎and Buck Brothers (a band photographed by Hampden-White). Additionally, this fails WP:ARTIST, including points 5b and 5c. (Exhibitions are minor gallery exhibitions and substantive press coverage is thin.) —Waldhorn (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the unsourced BLP rules Roberticus talk 15:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question to User:Waldhorn and User:Roberticus. This article is unimpressive, yet your nomination and sole (so far) "!vote" are puzzling. "This is an unreferenced WP:PROMO article", according to Waldhorn (my emphasis). And indeed, when Waldhorn wrote this, the article sported a "BLP unsourced" template. Why so? Well, on 7 July Waldhorn had added the template -- to an article that had, or purported to have, well over a dozen sources. Here (reformatted but otherwise untouched) are those that at that time appeared under "Solo exhibitions": New York Show, New York Link from New York Times, London Solo Show Review 1, London Solo Show Review 2, Rebecca Hossack Gallery Show, New Orleans Show, Cork Street Award, Kings College Cambridge Show, Kings College Cambridge Review, Host Gallery London Show in The Times, Gwise Festival London & Interview, Mayfair Squatters Feature in The Sun, Rebecca Hossack Gallery, Foto & Summer Show, Review ARC Gallery, Gaywise Festival Now, the URLs of some of these putative sources look dodgy and a disappointing number of those I tried among the remainder are dead. But please explain what you mean here by "unreferenced"/"unsourced". -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dearth of reliable sources that meet the intent of WP:RS and the significant coverage aspect of WP:SIGCOV, many are dead links and/ or awfully bloggy. I admit I didn't try to put these dead links in the "wayback machine". Allow me to ask you, do you think multiple good sources can be cobbled together for this person? The article reads like a resume, and that supported my agreement with the nom's rationale... Roberticus talk 03:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to know whether the sources are adequate, or even near adequate. What I am certain of is that a claim that this article has no sources or no references either is false or extends the meaning of "no" far beyond anything to which I'm accustomed. But let's make a start by looking at the ostensible sources that I listed above. (I've lazily retained the titles provided in the Wikipedia article.)

New York Show -- here at Wayback
New York Link from New York Times -- or more simply, [nytimes.com/2012/02/01/dining/food-calendar.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/dining/food-calendar.html] A mere mention.
London Solo Show Review 1 -- here at Wayback
London Solo Show Review 2 -- Not at Wayback. Website is now rebeccahossack.com; this page doesn't appear to be there.
Rebecca Hossack Gallery Show -- Not at Wayback. Website is now rebeccahossack.com; this page doesn't appear to be there.
New Orleans Show -- a mere mention that CHW will be one of "thirteen exciting artists from the UK and USA and music" who will be exhibiting
Cork Street Award -- yes, evidence that he won this prize
Kings College Cambridge Show -- yes, a short article about CHW's photography
Kings College Cambridge Review -- not there, and not at Wayback
Host Gallery London Show in The Times -- Yes, the article's there. CHW isn't mentioned in its start, and to read more you have to pass over the Great Wall of Murdoch.
Gwise Festival London & Interview -- Yes, it's there. And a short Youtube video is embedded within it, too.
Mayfair Squatters Feature in The Sun -- Now here within thescottishsun.co.uk. CHW isn't mentioned in the titillating start of the article ("Two busty squatters bared all for arty photos before being cleared from a £22.5million London mansion"), other than in the caption to a "NSFW" pic of two squatters; and in order to read more you have to pass over the Great Wall of Murdoch.
Rebecca Hossack Gallery -- Now a page saying merely "Stay tuned. / We'll be back." (Which the same as what the top page says.)
Foto & Summer Show -- Shows one photo by each of many photographers; CHW is among these.
Review ARC Gallery -- Neither where it should be nor at Wayback.
Gaywise Festival -- At least currently, a pointless link: all it does is take you to the other gaywisefestival.wordpress.com link listed above.

The series "Mayfair squatters" shows young female squatters (we're told), dressed either attractively or not at all, lounging around what's said to be a monstrously expensive house. This will have some appeal to those who simply enjoy T&A, and plenty of appeal to the curtain-twitching readers of the Daily Mail, Evening Standard, and other tabloids. Not surprising that searching for our man's name together with "Mayfair squatters" brings quite a lot of hits. Sorry, I'm not motivated to investigate their quality, but I'd object to any claim that they don't exist. -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at most of the still-live sites. I say "delete" because: 1) there are no sources for the biographical information, and I couldn't find any. Therefore, that information is unsourced (and possibly original research, e.g. was written by someone who knows him?). 2) I can find no sources that are about him in any detail, even though there is evidence that he is, or has been, a working photographer 3) the article is out of date, mentioning current shows that are no longer current. He fails notability, at least as evidenced in this article, and from what I can find with a quick search. LaMona (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won[edit]

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

Unreferenced, so fails WP:V and is mostly WP:OR JMHamo (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been tagged for no sources which should suffice. I think the article is effectively a summary of other WP articles about German clubs. The editors should be given reasonable time to provide meaningful external sources. GnGn (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - firstly, who is defining what is a "major" honour? Which reliable sources are talking about the topic of 'football clubs in Germany by major honours won'? I fear we have WP:SYNTH here. Giant Snowman 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with WP:OR implications of subjective term "major". If no reliable sources are discussing this then I am not sure the OR issues can be resolved. Fenix down (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We also have List of football clubs in Germany#List of clubs by major honours won, added February 2011. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs to be improved (as with List of football clubs in England by major honours won), not deleted. I know that other stuff exists, but if a list of clubs by honours won is notable for England, surely it is also notable for Germany? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Boladian[edit]

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

Article waiting under a notability tag since 6 years and almost no development for at least a year or two. No notability established. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Boladian is the subject of a 1500-word Slate article, linked to in our stub, as well as articles in Billboard and Forbes. Please read WP:BEFORE and WP:There is no deadline. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were not an admin I would respond you: 'What do you mean 'speedy keep'? Do you think an admin will rush here to close the discussion? Believe me it won't happen.' / As I have already seen you're an admin, I would like to question the conflict between 'There is no deadline' and 'speedy keep'. What is the hurry? Let's see what others will opine. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be shown whether Boladian has notability beyond Bridgeport Music - if not, then just merge with Bridgeport Music. Sorry Malik, I have not looked to see if those Slate / Billboard / Forbes articles do show this notability - but if you are voting keep maybe you should do that to strengthen your case. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a few references from WP:Newspapers.com and HighBeam and given his sustained coverage over the years and meets WP:BASIC. I am One of Many (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there is still almost nothing in this article that should not also be in the Bridgeport Music article. BTW, rather than Westbound Records being in the 1st sentence, should it not be Bridgeport Music given that it was founded a year earlier (also by Boladian according the Wikipedia article on Bridgeport Music) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bridgeport Music. The Slate, Billboard, and Forbes coverage mention Boladian, but are really coverage of Bridgeport. There's very little here that isn't already in the article on the company. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Koonce[edit]

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

An extremely obscure short film director whose short films are not even listed with the exception of one film. Has been tagged since 2011 also. Wgolf (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim of significance, no sources, no coverage found. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Moore (writer)[edit]

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

Not notable. Yet. Has published 1 book and has 1 credit as a screenwriter. Only mere mentions and primary source as main refs with 1 washington post reference. Fails WP:GNG. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One novel on the NYT bestseller list, plus screenwriter of a major film is plenty notable. --Delirium (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make him notable if there are no references to back it, thus why I stated it fails GNG. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. See Variety review of The Imitation Game and
Lou Lumenick's review of The Imitation Game at the Toronto International Film Festival.
SBaker43 (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is about the film not him, GNG requires significant coverage, that of which I have not found for him. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author of a book on the NYT bestseller list is notable, and ditto for a book made into a significant film. For one book, there's sometimes a question of whether the article should be on the author or the book, but with more than one work, it's the author. Clearly and unabiguously meets WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerogen (music)[edit]

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

Has been tagged since 2011, seems to be a unotable music producer. Granted its not unusual to see people with just a few cd's, but this guy's singles are not even listed on here. Wgolf (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:GNG and every criterion of WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Fails NMUSIC + GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D. Unwin[edit]

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

Despite it's ten-year tenure, this academic doesn't appear to meet PROF C1 [38], nor been referenced to third-party sources, nor are there other direct claims of notability under WP:ACADEMIC. It's possible that I've missed some reviews, however, that would demonstrate notability under WP:AUTHOR. Also note that the article is largely about one of this books, and it is possible that it would make sense, if this is kept, to refactor it to an article on the book with a redirect. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first gklance ths looks more like an article about the book than the author. Is the book itself notable? Perhaps both questions could be discussed Deltahedron (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is not actually about Stephen Unwin (who is not a notable academic or creative professional), but rather about his book. The book itself may be notable, having been the subject of a review in the AMS Notices. If the article is kept, it should be moved and purged of irrelevant biographical details. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject has an h-index of 8 on about 150 collective citations. I think this is too low for a physics sub-topic. We might consider his book separately, but WorldCat shows it is held by a few hundred institutions. This seem very low considering the very wide interest for the subject matter. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvi Verma[edit]

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

An actress with just 2 unotable roles. Says she is a model also which might make her somewhat notable. So I say either delete or userfy. Wgolf (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google shows quite a few hits on the name associated with her career, but I cannot locate any that would meet WP:RS. I would be willing to change my mind if someone could point out some that do. The results shows she is real, but simply doesn't have the WP:RS to meet Wikipedia guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I do see she is real-but not enough for her own page. (it seems that when it started she was going to have a career in films, but since she has only had 2 roles and that is it...)Wgolf (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It kind of sucks to have that many people talking about her, yet nothing reliable enough to use. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbad[edit]

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

Unreleased film, little information available in reliable sources, fails WP:MOVIE. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Tumbad Rahi Anil Barve Anand Gandhi Sohum Shah

Delete (or userfy) until filming is verified to have begun, then allow undeletion of recreation. The project IS getting coverage, but until filming is confirmed, we have a fail of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not yet found anything saying this is filming yet, but Screen Daily tells it is not expected to be completed until July 2015. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Srirama Navami[edit]

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

Well possibly outdated as it says will start shooting in 2008-yes 6 years ago. But then nothing ever indicates this even came out at all. No updates or anything. Wgolf (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

and WP:INDAFD: Sri Rama Navami Sri Vasu N. T. Rama Rao Jr. Tamanna Dil Raju

Delete A major issue is the many false positives caused by "Sri Rama Navami" being a springtime festival in India, celebrated for at least 108 years. So we look further. Yes, a film by this planned title received initial coverage in 2008 when NTR Jr. was signed,[39] but I have found no evidence that filming ever began. Perhaps they eventually used a different title. But THIS article fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI looked up one of the names on the IMDB (I think it was the director) who had a film in 2008 so I decided to see if it could be the same film with a different title, but I noticed that it looked different with who was in it so I figured it couldn't of been it. Wgolf (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Breeze[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. They have not received significant coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 10:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of WP:SIGCOV... Roberticus talk 19:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Bonser[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be minor supporting roles only, and no significant secondary coverage of him that I could find. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Kaminsky[edit]

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

No actual evidence of notability.Partner of an investment firm. VITAL is probably notable, but he did not develop it. Being appointed to the board of one charitable foundation is not notability. Everything here is either peripheral or a press release. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 02:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it is always helpful in these sorts of discussions involving a subject based in a foreign country to have an editor who speaks the local language help look for sources, in this case it definitely looks like the subject does not pass the GNG. I'm not even sure he would be a suitable redirect to the company, should that article be created.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't get why it should be deleted based on local editors votes, where are they and what is local? I've just come here from Biomedicine Oxford Conference (BigDataMed - Oxford), where the subject gave the talk. It makes sense to join his personal page with the company page but he is well-known in professional community and not only by ventures projects. By the way, the subject also participates in the biggest Pharma conference - MipTec in Basel as a partner, but somehow for many pharma managers wikipages exist without such discussions. --adyod 15:45, 18 September 2014 (GMT+2)

I didn't mean local !votes should count for more, just that it would be helpful to know that there aren't any Hong Kong based sources that are not in English. Although considering that the company works primarily in English this shouldn't be a huge issue. But while your personal anecdote might help, it needs to be backed up with some sort of independent and reliable source that gives substantial coverage of the subject.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this is only your third edit to Wikipedia -- I recommend checking out WP:GNG to see what we mean when discussing notability and the sourcing it requires.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. True, i'm not wikipedia editor, i'm scientist and came here after the conference while i googled the subject. Right now I also google "Dmitry Kaminskiy" + "Deep Knowledge Ventures" to prove the notability. The topic covered in english, spanish, portuguese, german, french, poland, russian, mandarin, japanese, arabic and so on in different news and articles. --adyod 16:11, 18 September 2014 (GMT+2)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patexia[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. I couldn't find any evidence that this three-person company[40] has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edcolins. I realize I might have a WP:COI, but as you can see on this article's history page and my talk page, Grand'mere Eugene has been a great collaborator and took the lead on starting the draft and moving it to the article space so we could avoid any issues with WP:COI.

There were additional sources that weren't used that I think establishes breath of coverage for notability as outlined by WP:CORP. Some external links are: [41], [42], [43], [44], and [45] as well as the references already cited in the article.

I'd welcome any feedback you have if more proof of notability is needed. --EchoSpark (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EchoSpark, thanks for your comment. In my opinion, the additional references you provided do not establish that the company is notable per WP:CORP.

The first one (authored by the Director of "Content Marketing", Content Boost, TMCnet, which stands for "Technology Marketing Corporation") does not seem to be independent from the subject. From WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
Each of the IAM, WIPO and DC Dispatch reference contains a mere passing reference to Patexia.
Finally, the YTN TV video is not independent from the subject, as it appears to have been sponsored by Patexia itself (notably considering the "Patexia" tag in the upper right-hand corner of the video).

--Edcolins (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edcolins. That's great feedback, thanks for clarifying. Let me rephrase to address your concerns.

The articles with Rooozafarin (published in 2014) [46], Techdirt [47], Luigi Benetton [48], and Intellogist [49] talk about Patexia in depth. The sources listed above, I agree, do make passing references, but they also establish a timeline for Patexia within 2014. Together, I believe both sets of sources help tie the detailed independent coverage of Patexia from 2011-2013 with more recent mentions from 2014 as required by WP:CORP: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."

Finally, I would disagree that the YTN TV video is not independent from the subject. As the YTN TV article establishes, it's a 24-hour cable news network. There is obviously some form of collaboration between YTN and Patexia, but I think one can expect that given the video footage at Patexia's office and interviews with their employees. However, I don't think collaboration equates sponsorship. To help support my position, here's a listing of the documentary on YTN's website [50] and here is the same video on a YouTube channel where YTN Science has posted all their videos [51].

I think that combined, the sources point to Patexia's notability. You have an amazing resume of work on Wikipedia articles relating to patents and patent offices. I'm sure you've also discovered that anonymity is the rule of thumb in the industry. I don't think it means the standards need to be lowered for this article, but I think there's room to allow for understanding why a company of Patexia's purported impact doesn't seem to have a proportional amount of sources as a company in a more consumer-facing industry, something I think the WP:WikiProject Companies supports where mid-importance companies "may be national companies which mainly function in the background and aren't commonly known outside of financial circles."

I hope that addresses your concerns and I look forward to your feedback.--EchoSpark (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additional comments. However, I am still not convinced that the company is notable, per WP:CORP. I should also add that comments such as "I'm sure you've also discovered that anonymity is the rule of thumb in the industry" are generally considered inappropriate on Wikipedia per WP:FOC. See also Don't push (the second paragraph especially). You may wish to ask for help here. --Edcolins (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that feedback and for being patient with me. I'll keep that in mind with my feedback on Wikipedia. I'll also give the WP:RESCUE a closer look to help improve my edits. Thanks again!--EchoSpark (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The article has one Reliable Source reference (Bloomberg Businessweek), but it is not about Patexia except for a passing mention. I couldn't find any additional sources in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With a vested interest as the article's creator, I have little to add to EchoSpark's comments above. I tried to be vigilant in editing to maintain NPOV, but I also had some concerns for the subject's notability. I understand the evaluation that some of the references only mention Patexia in passing, or may not be reliable/independent enough. However, in reviewing the sources today I found that the Luigi Benetton article was originally published in a LexisNexis journal, The Lawyers Weekly - In-house Counsel. In my estimation, since that publication has an editorial board, it is a more reliable source than the website previously referenced. I made the revision to that citation in the Patexia article. Patexia's coverage in this article may not be enough to meet notability standards, but I thought that information worth your consideration. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kahkashan International[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establihs the notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 82.9.185.151 (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is presumed per WP:Notability (media) for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiability meet through reliable sources, this article does not passes that.Justice007 (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing at all in GBooks, GScholar, GNews or JSTOR in either the English or Urdu dress of the name. James500 (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Nation Builders[edit]

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

Non-notable political organization lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article created by editor with username identical to one listed as "Founder". -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG; no sources outside those affiliated with the subject. --Drm310 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (consult) @ 19:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this organisation is notable. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmeena El Sabeh[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources to establish the notability. Google news search returns no results [52], and Google Books search also returns no results [53]. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Presented as the daughter of some-one notable but alas, notability is not inherited. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement Estimator[edit]

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

I prodded this with the following rationale

A search online reveals that there are lots of sites offering a tool that estimates social security benefits, or superannuation, or other forms of retirement savings, not just the one from the US Social Security site. But there are none that describe such tools in a way that would allow a suitable WP article to be written.

The prod was declined on the grounds that it allegedly "needs expansion". However, such expansion is impossible because there are no substantial reliable sources that describe this topic. I checked google web, scholar, books and news and came up empty-handed. Finding examples of these online tools themselves are not sufficient. Reyk _YO! 03:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very short article that is an orphan to main space articles. Aerospeed (Talk) 00:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michael Bentley (producer)[edit]

M. M. Manasi[edit]

Lpr[edit]

DELTREE[edit]

ATTRIB[edit]

Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt[edit]

MASwings Flight 3002[edit]

Holly Ryder[edit]

Grover Furr[edit]

Syed Imtiaz Ali Naqvi[edit]

Tejaswi Madivada[edit]

AKA (rapper)[edit]

The Hill (Boulder)[edit]

Seth Rembold[edit]

Ganga puja[edit]

Indroneel Mukherjee (Fashion Designer)[edit]

Ivan Rabb[edit]

Miguel Laurencena[edit]

Dick Raaymakers[edit]

Ziyaddin Magerramov[edit]

Tarik Shah[edit]

Kindred Healthcare[edit]

Billy Hill and the Hillbillies[edit]

Rosalind Cubitt

ChnLove[edit]

Billy tchouague[edit]

Mitch Haniger[edit]

Michael Nusimow[edit]

Derrick Worsley[edit]

Shurima[edit]

UEFA Euro 2004 match stats[edit]

Neural Workflow[edit]

Passerby (EP)[edit]

Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014[edit]

Schütte-Lanz G.IV[edit]

Jamie Hanley[edit]

Air Europa Flight 41[edit]

Khalsa Sporting Club[edit]

Langley Athletic FC[edit]

Gaddafi (Npk twice song)[edit]

SARVAJANIK GANESHOTSAV MANDAL, RAMNAGAR[edit]

Sycamore Pictures[edit]

Kathryn Noble[edit]

Phaethon (roller coaster)[edit]

Paul M. Gahlinger[edit]

John W. Coltrane Cultural Society[edit]

Madhva Kanva Mutt[edit]

Penny Slinger[edit]

List of World Top 40 number-one singles of 2014[edit]

List of World Top 40 number-one singles of 2013[edit]

List of World Top 40 number-one singles of 2012[edit]

Islamic Research Foundation[edit]

Charge (game)[edit]

Do My Thang[edit]

Hidden Cash[edit]

Marchex[edit]

Oleksa Nehrebets'kyi[edit]

Alex Chamberlin[edit]

Jennifer Banko-Stewart[edit]

Hariakhan Baba (disambiguation)[edit]

Muriel Peterson Robinson-Edgar[edit]

Jorg Janke[edit]

Avenue Journal (magazine)[edit]

Avraham Solomon[edit]

Daren Metropoulos[edit]

Forcefield Records[edit]

List of years in literature[edit]

Scomo Kill[edit]

Dana Duckworth[edit]

Turk beezy[edit]

Colin Hampden-White[edit]

List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won[edit]

Armen Boladian[edit]

Brett Koonce[edit]

Graham Moore (writer)[edit]

Kerogen (music)[edit]

Stephen D. Unwin[edit]

Tanvi Verma[edit]

Tumbad[edit]

Srirama Navami[edit]