The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Köszönöm[edit]

Köszönöm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find any references to support the notability of the song. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 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, j⚛e decker^talk 23:57, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rivers (American football)[edit]

Jason Rivers (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Player who has never played professionally, thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed with reason "notable college career. Added references", yet career shows otherwise. GauchoDude (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh really? Not a notable college career? His "career shows otherwise"? The guy is in the top 20 for career college receptions. That along with the references I added makes hiim notable to me.--Yankees10 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yankees10, please adhere to Wikipedia:Civility, one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Your addition of two sources (one of which from a "HawaiiWarriorBeat.Com Editor") make him notable to you, I don't doubt that, however we are looking for general consensus. I personally find it hard to believe that a generally notable person would have just a handful of sources. GauchoDude (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there was nothing uncivil about my comment.--Yankees10 16:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG as he has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple mainstream media outlets, including the items cited above by Yankees10, so as to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Yankees10 and Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no mjaor awards or records) or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season game in the NFL or other major league). I did find significant coverage from the two major newspapers in Hawaii about the subject's college career, and some lesser, but still significant coverage from the run-up to the 2008 Sugar Bowl from multiple news outlets outside Hawaii. Personally, I like to see more coverage from outside the hometown/home region when making determinations of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but on balance, I believe the subject satisfies the GNG standard in this case. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:14, 28 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) 21:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Anae[edit]

Robert Anae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed with reason "Currently the offensive coordinator of a top 25 team", which does not imply notability as shown above. GauchoDude (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pretty clearly passes GNG [1][2][3][4][5][6] Thats just the first two pages of a google search. Did you even bother doing research with this one?--Yankees10 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Offensive coordinator at a Division I university. Significant coverage in multiple mainstream media outlets, as referenced by Yankees10, goes far beyond routine coverage and is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable Division I FBS offensive coordinator. In my world, coordinators and assistant coaches, whether they work in an FBS program or a Division III program get no special consideration: in the absence of a major award or prior playing career that satisfies WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON, they must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Per Yankee10's links above and my own cursory review of Google search results, the subject clearly satisfies the GNG standard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:14, 27 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Daniels[edit]

Donny Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NHOOPS after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed with no reason given. GauchoDude (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - College basketball head coaches actually do meet WP:NCOLLATH, which reads: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: 1) Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record, 2)Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame), or 3) Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Rikster2 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NCOLLATH. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read the phrase "Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: ..." as using a serial comma, meaning the entire phrase is subject to the list following for which the subject does not meet. In any case, GNG supersedes which has yet to be shown outside of WP:ROUTINE coverage. GauchoDude (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - you are not reading it correctly. It is saying that head coaches, well known assistants and players who (with list). The clue is the third item which reads "not just a player for a notable team." It doesn't say "player or coach for a notable team. Rikster2 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rikster and Jrcla2 as an NCAA Division I head coach. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rikster2. I am One of Many (talk) 07:18, 29 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) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Mathews[edit]

Phil Mathews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NHOOPS after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed because "he is notable", with no supporting evidence or reasoning given. GauchoDude (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Like most NCAA Division I men's basketball head coaches, the subject is going to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. A Google keyword search for "Phil Mathews" & "San Francisco" pulled up multiple significant articles in which Mathews was the primary subject. Here's a selection: (1) Los Angeles Times multiple articles; (2) San Francisco Chronicle (3/9/2004); (3) Press Enterprise (3/14/2013); (4) San Francisco Chronicle (12/18/1998); (5) Los Angeles Daily News (2/26/2010). This is the tip of the iceberg -- I have not run searches of Google News Archive or Newspapers.com because I don't think it's necessary. I'm sure other editors will find multiple feature articles about the subject, too. This article should not be deleted; it just needs loving care from a college basketball fan to build a respectable C-class article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In addition to the sources listed by Dirtlawyer1, college basketball head coaches actually do meet WP:NCOLLATH, which reads: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: 1) Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record, 2)Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame), or 3) Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Rikster2 (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The refs Dirtlawyer provided sufficiently counter the nominator's reason for deletion as Mathews being a non-notable head coach (he is). Jrcla2 (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I read the phrase "Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: ..." as using a serial comma, meaning the entire phrase is subject to the list following for which the subject does not meet. If you feel GNG is met, which it may meet with new evidence, then please add to article. As many of those articles seem to be about him getting hired or fired from a club, I would be wary of WP:ROUTINE which I believe those may fall under. GauchoDude (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• GD, hiring and firing articles may be WP:ROUTINE when they consist of a sentence or two in the "transactions" section of the sports page, but hirings and firings are 5 to 20-year events that often lead to very solid feature articles about the subject coach which include nice summaries of the coach's entire coaching history, including notable successes and failures. As for satisfying GNG regarding Phil Mathews, I am one of the tougher GNG/AfD analyzers and I think the standard is clearly met. If you want articles about subjects other than Mathews' hirings and firings, I suggest you look over the compilation of Los Angeles Times articles to which I linked above. If you want more after that, I am happy to run the Google News Archive and Newspapers.com searches, and provide more. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - you are not reading it correctly. It is saying that head coaches, well known assistants and players who (with list). The clue is the third item which reads "not just a player for a notable team." It doesn't say "player or coach for a notable team. Rikster2 (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject of the article meet WP:SPORTCRIT and also meet WP:NCOLLATH. There are significant WP:RS that establish its notability Wikicology (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dirtlawyer1, Rikster, and Jrcla2 as an NCAA Division I head coach. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:18, 26 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) 21:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cleveland[edit]

Steve Cleveland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only a collegiate head coach, thus fails WP:NHOOPS after satisfying none of the other requirements. Also fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. PROD removed on "D1 basketball head coach. Obviously notable", which is not met. GauchoDude (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG anyway:[7][8][9][10][11]--Yankees10 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in addition to the sources listed by Yankees10, head coaches actually do meet WP:NCOLLATH, which reads: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: 1) Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record, 2)Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame), or 3) Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Rikster2 (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG and NCOLLATH, with the refs supported by Yankees10. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I read the phrase "Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: ..." as using a serial comma, meaning the entire phrase is subject to the list following for which the subject does not meet. Additionally, above GNG evidence seems lukewarm. Of the 5 articles provided, one leads to a broken page and two I find as WP:ROUTINE about him either joining or leaving a team. GauchoDude (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you are not reading it correctly. It is saying that head coaches, well known assistants and players who (with list). The clue is the third item which reads "not just a player for a notable team." It doesn't say "player or coach for a notable team. Rikster2 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Yankees10, Rikster, and Jrcla2 as an NCAA Division I head coach. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In the modern media era, the overwhelming majority of Division I men's basketball coaches are going to receive sufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG; this subject clearly does so per the examples listed by Yankees10 above. FYI, I have always interpreted the third clause of WP:NCOLLATH as effectively incorporating the GNG standard, with the caveat further that some portion of the coverage be national and not just hometown newspaper or in-state coverage; otherwise, the standard embedded in the third clause is hopelessly vague. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 28 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 Sarma (food). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arambašići[edit]

Arambašići (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject does not appear to be a notable dish/recipe. Safiel (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sarma (food), where arambašići are already discussed as one of the many related recipes composed of a large leaf wrapped around a filling (they simply called them stuffed grape leaves where I grew up). There are some book sources for arambašići apparent at GBooks, but not enough to make a case for a separate article, especially given the lack of content in the current version. At some point we may need to explore the relationship and demarcation between the articles for Sarma (food) and Dolma, but that's not necessary to resolve this AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sarma as suggested. There are sources in its local language but no-one interested (and possibly no benefit for the project) in developing it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sarma (food) seems the most sensible option, based on Arxiloxos's suggestion and my thoughts on the article's talk page when I contested the speedy delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• We often redirect food articles to variant names, and I would follow that precedent. See also WP:CHEAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 15:29, September 24, 2014‎

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

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

The result was Delete. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW and because of BLP issues. Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martijn Jeurissen[edit]

Martijn Jeurissen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources appear to be available for this individual. BLP:PROD has been declined several times without addition of reliable sources. JHCaufield - talk - 20:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This AfD is unnecessary. BLPPROD cannot be declined. The BLPPROD tag should only be removed if at least one reliable source has been added. --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The tag was repeatedly removed, accompanied by addition of a questionable source. As per WP:BLPPROD: "If there is any doubt to the applicability of this procedure to the article, then it is preferable to use another deletion process." I haven't seen any reliable sources for it yet but BLPPROD clearly isn't working here at the moment. JHCaufield - talk - 13:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - No notability at all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Urgent delete - Thorough study of the article's history and its wider context lead to the conclusion that the article constituted of multiple hoaxes by or continuous cyber harassment of a person living in the Netherlands. gidonb (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also block creator. gidonb (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination as there are no reliable sources to substantiate existence of this article Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:01, 26 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. Michig (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xperform[edit]

Xperform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence or assertion of notability for this product - it's not cited in any of the included references. —Swpb^talk 20:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 20:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Topical anesthetics can be used to treat PE, as the references in this article suggest, so they are worth the mention at Premature_ejaculation#Treatments, . Maybe it is worth mentioning too in benzocaine that it can be used for this purpose. But there is nothing whatsoever notable about this particular product. The article is merely promotional. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Indeed, it does not appear to be mentioned by name in any of the refs. Couldn't find any reliable sources covering it. ~KvnG 13:46, 24 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. at time of nomination, it appeared to be a delete, but given changes to article and discussion I see a keep as being prudent. Tawker (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Daniels (disambiguation)[edit]

Norman Daniels (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disambig page that only serves to promote one Norman Daniels. No other entries worth keeping. KonveyorBelt 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there has been a discussion about the novelist, and it's only a pseudonym. How is that 'ambiguity' ordinarily handled? Certainly a person looking for the men's fiction author should not be misled to think that the philosopher was author of those paperback novels.

The disamgiguation page (or a 'hatnote') should not in itself be cited as reason for a deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation MaynardClark (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

How would other Wikipedians like to handle the ambiguity issue? Remember, it's about a pseudonym, not about a real author, and any mention of that pseudonym can only diminish the original subject. However, it's 'there' in the world... MaynardClark (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not really necessary. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No no no - The fiction writer was Norman A. Danberg, and HIS pseudonym was 'Norman A. Daniels' (who wrote paperback 'junk fiction' with adventure themes.

This Wikipedia article is about Norman O. Daniels, PhD., the political theorist who harmonized the controversial questions about moral responsibilities about health AND healthcare with a consistent ethical theory of justice, based upon the consequentiallist reasoning of John Rawls.

The article about disambiguation is about the likely confusion about two men who wrote with the name 'Norman Daniels' - one legitimately using his own name, and the other writing pseudonymously. MaynardClark (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - for the reasons cited above. Further, a look at the Wikipedia 'What links here' for the Norman Daniels article shows great confusion ALREADY within Wikipedia. It lists on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Norman_Daniels the following Wikipedia articles which should NOT be linked to Norman Daniels because they refer to the 'Norman A. Daniels' pseudonym of 'Norman A. Danberg'.

• The Avengers (TV series)
• Ben Casey
• List of Ace double novels
• The Black Bat
• List of Ace titles in numeric series
• List of Ace western double titles

That is SIX (6) - count 'em - misconnected articles which (presumably other) Wikipedians had wrongly thought refer to THIS person, a Harvard faculty member. Whether or not a Wikipedia article about Norman Danberg should be developed it outside the scope of my interest, but this discussion about the deletion of the Disambiguation page may wish to consider that Wikipedia already has six pre-existing pages wrongly attribued to Dr. Norman O. Daniels BECAUSE of the unresolved ambiguity. Of course, some folks DO resolve ambiguity for a living.

MaynardClark (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Disambiguation page which only has two names listed, one of which is currently being nominated for CSD G12, and the other links to a pseudonym of a non-notable author. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have expanded the page with an entry for Norm Daniels (American football), who is referred to as Norman Daniels in several Wikipedia season articles relating to his student career with the Michigan Wolverines between 1928 and 1932. So far as the existing entries go, the WP:G12 nomination has been dealt with by the removal of the offending material, leaving an article that could do with more independent sourcing but is adequate for someone clearly meeting WP:PROF; and I have expanded and re-referenced the other entry to a reliable source, an article entitled Daniels, Norman A by John Clute in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which I would regard in itself as a fairly strong indicator of notability, as well as rather confirming that Danberg was better known under the Daniels pseudonym rather than his actual name. I suspect that someone with enough access to specialist offline or paywalled sources could establish enough notability for a standalone article on him - but in any case, where a name (pseudonym or not) is enough of a search term to be mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, a redirect to an article with some relevant information or (as here) a disambiguation page entry linking to one or two of those articles is appropriate. PWilkinson (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This clearly meets the guidelines for a disambiguation page. All three entries are valid, i.e. have an article or meet MOS:DABMENTION. @Konveyor Belt:, have you read the guidelines for disambiguation pages? Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair to the nominator, at the time it was nominated for AfD there was only one other non-article entry. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, sorry, I realised that. However, WP:ATD, more entries should have been looked for, I've added more, so there are now five six entries. Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as it now stands it's clearly a valid and useful dab page. PamD 15:24, 29 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. Of note is that notions herein about article improvements can continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative Project on Terrorism[edit]

Investigative Project on Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Noncompliance, and failure to meet criteria for notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Atsme☯^Consult 17:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are many sources discussing the IPT. Mina Ivanova says that the IPT is founded by Steven Emerson, and that the non-profit "claims to offer 'the world's most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic groups'". The Ivanova piece is found within the Clarke Rountree-edited book Venomous Speech, published by ABC-CLIO. Deepa Kumar writes that the IPT is one of the top six purveyors of anti-Muslim racism in the US, on pages 188–189 of Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, published by Haymarket Books. In Speculative Security: The Politics of Pursuing Terrorist Monies, published by the University of Minnesota Press, political scientist Marieke de Goede writes about IPT in a long paragraph on page 15, and a sizable footnote on page 225, describing it as a key source of information intended to keep terrorist financing in front of the public. In Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance, published by Vanderbilt University, criminologist George Michael says on page 193 that IPT is one of three NGOs that US authorities refer to with regard to the activities of radical Islam. George Michael also writes in the Middle East Quarterly that the IPT has "conducted investigations into many Islamist and terrorist groups and individuals... stirred up more hornets' nests than many government agencies... hone in on targets that broader agencies missed." Scholars Melva Underbakke and Pedro Ruz Gutierrez wrote an article published by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: "After 10-Year Investigation, U.S. Government Fails to Convict Dr. Sami Al-Arian". The article describes IPT as an authority on radical Islam, quoting "senior terrorism analyst" Brian Hecht of IPT on the case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian. I think all this coverage by high quality sources establishes notability, and the presence of Brian Hecht in a number of cites, and the absence of Steven Emerson, means that IPT cannot simply be merged to the Steven Emerson biography. The IPT article should stay. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Per Binksternet.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete reasons in my comment below. Atsme☯^Consult 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Binksternet, I'm a little confused by your vote to "keep" the article considering two months ago you stated: I'm in favor of moving this article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation as you suggest, and having the Emerson biography corrected to reflect accurate secondary sources (rather than self-serving primary sources) but I'm not so hot on the idea that all of Emerson's former activities should be fully removed from this article. We should tell the reader what came before, and how it is related. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Diff is here: [12]. The foundation itself has no notability without Steven Emerson attached, and no one would know anything about it if it weren't for their own press releases, and self-published websites. Anything readers need to know about Emerson's work prior to 2006 can be found in Steven Emerson, and if it isn't there, it can be added. The IPT article is supposed to be about a notable nonprofit organization - The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation that was organized in 2006 - anything prior to that time belongs to Steven Emerson. There simply aren't enough reliable secondary sources, and no third party sources that substantiate the Foundation's notability. Notability for an organization is neither inherent, nor inherited. The "reliable" sources you cited above are not neutral, particularly Deepa Kumar. D. Pipes is more neutral. Regardless, where is the balance? There simply are no secondary sources available to present a neutral, well-balanced article. One editor violated WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH to create the infobox. As it stands now, the article is nothing more than a WP:Coatrack. If you believe the sources you cited are all that's needed to improve the article, please improve it. However, as the lead editor, I can assure you will find major obstacles trying to find reliable secondary sources that support the Foundation. All you will find are self-published press releases, original docs from Congressional hearings, and Emerson's television interviews. In fact, a while back you deleted the sections I included for neutrality as follows: (→‎Boston Marathon Bombing: delete section... this issue is of very little importance in the case. The videos posted by the two bombers were little seen. The IPT did nothing substantial here.), and also another one: (Undid revision 600924125 by Atsme (talk) The group also eats lunch. We don't tell the reader about unimportant activities such as this one with little reaction in the media.). Diffs are here: [13] The comments you made then still hold true today. The article lacks notability, so I don't understand why you are voting to keep it now. Atsme☯^Consult 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A move discussion is very different from a deletion discussion. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was easier to simply delete this one since I've already included the relevant sections to be moved to the new article, and requested collaboration, aka HELP. Atsme☯^Consult

You don't delete it before you move or after. Moving as in Moving the article to a new title or simply renaming the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You delete noncompliant articles that are riddled with inaccuracies and misinformation like this one.Atsme☯^Consult 04:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't delete and recreate. It's puzzling your desire here to recreate when you are seperately arguing that the topic is not notable. If it is not notable now then how would it suddenly become notable 5 minutes later when you go to recreate it?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It really is sad that you can't see the problem, but then you don't edit main articles - you edit Talk pages to harass editors who do edit main articles. Do you even know how to write prose? Prior to becoming a Foundation, IPT was Steven Emerson. As IPT, the article violates policy. Read the policy. Atsme☯^Consult 14:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator above. The nomination is the delete !vote; multiple !votes are not allowed. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google news search reveals 166 results.[14] and a Reliable Sources Search Engine yields 100 results (the maximum allowed). Before someone (incorrectly) cites WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to general Google searches, not Google News searches which indexes sites which tend to meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What did you search? Can you be more specific? Did you look at any of the search results? It's easy to say I did a search for IPT, and 6,000 results came back, but how are you determining reliability and neutrality? Are you searching for the Investigative Project on Terrorism because if you are, you are searching for the wrong organization. That will bring up all kinds of garbage. The only legal organization is The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, so if the word Foundation isn't coming up in your search results, your results are not accurate. That's the whole point of this delete request. The article is noncompliant starting with the first sentence. Please, can we at least try to put some effort into getting it right? Atsme☯^Consult 03:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you click on the link provided[15] Are you saying that there are two organizations, one named "Investigative Project on Terrorism" and another named "Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation"? If so, then yes my search was faulty. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • • A Quest For Knowledge Yes, and why the article has major issues. IPT is Steven Emerson, a "doing business as", a dba - him and him alone. IPT inherited Emerson's notability which is against policy. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is the nonprofit "organization" legally formed in 2006, and determined to be a charity by the IRS. The article is riddled with inaccuracies, bad sourcing, and misinformation. I've been trying to fix this mess. Atsme☯^Consult 14:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, the situation appears to be more complicated than I first thought. I'm (temporarily) striking through my keep !no vote until I have time to research this further. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm confused by all the tags. You're wanting to delete, you want to merge and you want to move. Which is it? Also, I agree with a previous comment that deleting and recreating is not necessary. If an article isn't notable now, how does recreating it change that? I would, however, agree that the article as is requires a huge makeover. That said, it is not such a daunting task that a couple of well-sourced edits couldn't fix. Kobuu (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been reading the various responses to this discussion and I felt that I should further explain my vote. I am not following the backstory, the edit war, or anything else. I am part of WP:Cleanup and came here because this article was listed on the main Clean Up page. My question is this: Why would you request that a team of editors clean up the article and then, at the same time, nominate that article for deletion?? The same reasoning keeps being repeated but it seems that the answers aren't being followed. The sources provided are reliable and can be sourced to greatly improve this article. All that aside, however, again, why would you ask for help editing this article and then propose merging, moving and deleting? Kobuu (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You aren't the only group sought out. TAFI was as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the subject has received significant coverage from at least two reliable sources, all be it highly critical of the subject (Salon, Politico), among a plethora of other reliable sources (easily found by searching for the subject of this article up for AFD). On top of that, in regards to this draft guideline, WP:PUBLISHER (lets call it an essay for our purposes), the subject's publications been highly cited in books (example), and journals (including scholarly ones). Therefore, based on what I can find, the subject appears to be notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep- I move for a speedy keep under Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#Applicability 2A, 2C, and 2D. This is just another chapter in a story that dates back to March. This is Frivolous, vexatious, simply an outright abuse of process. Atsme is simply using this to end an editing dispute. This is also the second deletion discussion. The prior one took place on Steven Emerson's talk page here's the diff and and here it is archived. The user also canvassed 3 other editors to that conversation. Only one came and only to mention that she did canvass. The user currently has a new merge proposal on Talk:Steven_Emerson. The user is trying to remove any link to the article on IPT from Steven Emerson article as seen here. This has been on ANI 3 times. It's been been raised elsewhere. This is all about a Template on page about Islamophobia. An RFC in March seen here and archived here resulted in a consensus that this template was not a npov violation. After march 26 she didn't make further response edits there until June 22. On June 29 she removed that template again though it's strangely absent from her editing summary. She removed it again some time after that. If this page is deleted and recreated under a different name it will lose it's editing history on the article page and the talk page. The consensus that the template is not an NPOV violation goes with it. There by removing Atsme's need to get consensus to remove the template. There really so much more to say but I'm actually tired of repeating myself and this should enough for a speedy keep.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please, before another vote is cast, try to understand the following: IPT is Steven Emerson - it was not a legal "organization" - it is a dba for Emerson, and without him, it has no notability. The only legal "organization" was formed in 2006 named The Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION. It is the ONLY nonprofit organization that Emerson has any connection to, and he is the Executive Director, but there are other people involved in the Foundation, not just Emerson as with IPT which is nothing more than a dba for Steven Emerson. IPT inherited notability from Steven Emerson - without him, there is no notability. All the sources that are being cited above refer to Steven Emerson dba IPT, and NOT the legal foundation the article is supposed to be covering. I am working on establishing notability for the FOUNDATION, otherwise it is Emerson dba IPT. By keeping the article as is, you are giving Steven Emerson two articles on Wikipedia. You are not seeing the true picture here. Atsme☯^Consult 14:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's not a legal organization. The American Bar Association is a legal organization. Even if anyone was to consider your logic there's a flaw in it overall. WP:NNC Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. That fact that it's 1995 founding is mentioned does nothing for your deletion position.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator's premises are incorrect. Policy is to fix, rather than delete, articles that are imperfect. See WP:PRESERVE. Nor is the argument persuasive that sources have to use the word "Foundation", or that they have to post-date the official incorporation date of the current formal entity, to be relevant to the topic. The nominator has received advice from multiple editors at WP:VPM (and now here in this AfD), but seems unwilling to accept it. There is no policy violation here, and certainly nothing that can't be addressed through normal editing processes. Rather than further blizzards of words, the nominator should take a little time to review Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nominator's premises are absolutely correct. To begin, we don't need two articles on Steven Emerson, so the delete request for IPT is valid. Emerson is IPT. Editors here are clearly having difficulty understanding policy, and what inherited notability means. IPT inherited Emerson's notability, and cannot stand on its own. Without Emerson, what do you have? Simple answer: all that remains is the legally formed charity - The IPT FOUNDATION which was organized in 2006 with Steven Emerson acting as Executive Director. There are no reliable secondary sources that meet the criteria of the FOUNDATION's notability because the media isn't writing about it. What you'll find are books criticizing Emerson, dba IPT, which has nothing to do with the Foundation. Again - inherited notability. Where are the secondary sources that provide neutral information about the Foundation less Steven Emerson? You cannot fix the existing article because (1) it is named incorrectly, (2) it is full of violations, and (3) it has inherited notability - all are policy violations. I can't for the life of me figure out why editors are having such a difficult time understanding the problem. PLEASE, read the policy Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) - NO INHERENT NOTABILITY - NO INHERITED NOTABILITY. It can't be any more obvious. Atsme☯^Consult 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Tamlar Tesser, Ray Locker, would be disapointed to find out this. Steve Emerson and a foundation is all there is. No Pete Hoekstra and no Lorenzo Vidino. And I don't think that Fox, Forbes, or The NY times Got the memo. There are numerous sources that make the case for notability. But there isn't much for your case. And your actions betray your cause. You open this to delete, on Steven Emerson talk you opened your second merge proposal, and at the same time you are trying to edit the Steven Emerson Article to scrub it of Investigative project on Terrorism. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, thank you, thank you. Your first link absolutely validates my entire point - Tamar Tesler, a senior analyst with the Investigative Project, a conservative group that studies terrorist organizations.... Thank you again!! To begin the article was written in 2005 and identifies The Investigative Project, NOT the Investigative Project on Terrorism, or The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. By combining them, you are violating WP:SYNTH. The Investigative Project was Steven Emerson's think tank, so what makes you think it has the notability for its own article? Teslar's two or three sentence opinion in a NY Times article is trivial, and does nothing to establish notability. Your second link is a FOX News report that states: But Ray Locker, managing director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, told MyFoxNY.com that even in 1999, news outlets reported on possible ties between HLF and terror organizations. So tell me, how does an incident from 1999 relate to the Foundation today, and how does that establish notability for the Foundation? In 1999, Steven Emerson was an independent expert on Terrorism with "think tank" and a production company that produced documentaries. It has nothing to do with the Foundation's work from 2006 forward. You are grasping at straws, and I can assure you, every source you try to include will end up with the same or similar critique except for a mere handful. Policy clearly states: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Not one source cited in the arguments to KEEP this article can be considered reliable sources to establish notability as I just demonstrated with the links you provided. The majority if not all will refer back to Emerson. Don't you get it?? However, the FOUNDATION is A SEPARATE ENTITY, it was "born" in 2006. Anything prior to that time, or directly related to Emerson prior to his becoming Executive Director of the Foundation belongs in his bio. The Foundation and IPT are NOT one in the same. The Investigative Project is Steven Emerson, and so is The Investigative Project on Terrorism as I tried to explain before your reverts in Steven Emerson. The Foundation is the only true separate entity, and it should have its own accurately named article provided it meets the criteria for NOTABILITY. Everything else needs to be merged into Steven Emerson because it's just not notable enough to be stand alone. Atsme☯^Consult 19:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The investigative project is another known name for IPT.This is from IPT's website with an indication that it is from them and this is the original from WSJ. They list the name as The investigative project. IPT claim themselves to be founded in 1995 [16]. This source meets reliability guidelines under wp:sps. In addition a number of other sources say the same thing. IPTF as you differentiate it is tied directly to IPT. IPTF funds IPT work. There is no legitimate differentiation between the 2. This is from 2005 before your 2006 non-profit incorporation. It indicated that Steven Emerson was the Executive director of the Investigative Project. Again another known name for the investigative project on Terrorism. While you try to differentiate the two you fail to do so. As far as on the Steven Emerson page, You are trying to remove any content that refers to IPT while on talk page you are trying to have it merged. Here you trying to have it deleted. Your removal of the content while trying to achieve a consensus on the content in multiple locations is an all out bad call on your part. But I'm done here unless anything comes up.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And therein the problem lies. You don't get it. A legally recognized charity, aka Foundation, is a SEPARATE ENTITY. You really need to read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Your comments above prove you don't know what you're talking about. Hopefully there will be some input from editors who actually do understand the differences, and WP policy requirements for notability. I have been unable to help you understand what it means to be a separate entity. Atsme☯^Consult 21:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - before you post an opinion or your comment, please read the Funding Section at Investigative Project on Terrorism. You should see immediately why the article has a serious COI, and needs to be deleted. IPT is not The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. It is IPT, which is the dba of Steven Emerson, it is not a nonprofit charity because the funding is provided to IPT by the charity. The COI then begs the question, who the heck is IPT? Short answer - Steven Emerson, and his website. It's a mess. Atsme☯^Consult 06:09, 24 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 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kazem Khezri[edit]

Kazem Khezri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article lacks reliable sources,Does not meet the relevant notability guideline (Biography) , Against the Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and against the Wikipedia's policy on Conflict of interest Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Support. Fails WP:BIO. Contains no reliable sources, only Facebook, a blog with poetry and various other Wiki pages (also with Facebook etc. as sources). Tassedethe (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note the article Diyako Mad that is a duplicate of this one . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without any notability or reliable sources. --  ARASH PT  talk  00:11, 29 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. Michig (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Shepherd[edit]

Little Shepherd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The film appears to be based on the 1951 book Little Shepherd by Anobel Armour. Google does not show whether or not the book is notable, but if its notability can be established, I would be okay with mentioning this film in an article re-tailored to be about the book. If nothing can be found, I am fine with deleting the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete Having just spent some time with the article fixing it per per MOS:FILM, I agree... this short film fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:25, 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. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangaarada Panjara[edit]

Bangaarada Panjara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article was WP:PRODded with concerns about notability and lack of sources. Author removed the prod tag with a statement asserting that IMDB is sufficient (it isn't) and made no improvements thereafter to address the concerns. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as usual, it is very difficult to get online sources proving the existence of pre-2000 regional indian films. Major actors acted in this film. I have found couple of articles mentioning the film: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/156113/content/218765/archives.php, http://www.sify.com/movies/boxoffice.php?id=14941886&cid=13319495. Regards, --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dwaipayanc. Plus http://books.google.com/books?id=xPHZAAAAMAAJ p. 681, http://books.google.com/books?id=wgEbAQAAIAAJ p. 104 and http://books.google.com/books?id=SLkABAAAQBAJ p. 186 confirms the notability. Here is the movie in full: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ_HOVQXZrA --Soman (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

and WP:INDAFD: Bangaarada Panjara

• Keep Suitable sourcable stub article. There is no requirement that it "must" be improved or be deleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:55, 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 speedy delete - spamvertorial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dissertation proposal format[edit]

Dissertation proposal format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article reads as a guide to writing a dissertation (WP:NOTGUIDE), is completely unsourced, and is likely WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tag ((GOCEreviewed|user=Dthomsen8|date=22 September 2014|issues=Awaiting deletion results before copyediting)) added on talk page.-- Dthomsen8 15:20, 22 September 2014‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) - it's an ad for a dissertation writing service, even includes a link to their website. Lemnaminor (talk) 09:32, 24 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! 05:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finnair flight AY 915[edit]

Finnair flight AY 915 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not newspaper, GNG, Sources not verifiable, no outcome, no damage, no casualties, Possible hoax due to lack of verifiable souces, the list goes on.... Petebutt (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The incident can be notable but what did or did not happen isn't verifiable. It is the claims of two people over 25+ years later in a tabloid newspaper. There is no other source to back it up, so delete....William 18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On Hold The article is very recent, it is only normal that there is room for improvement, especially as regards sources. I regret that it was nominated for deletion so soon, seeing the effort that was put into it. My vote would be to wait for at least a couple of weeks before taking any action; meanwhile checking for the incident to appear on the well-known aviation incident sites. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Need I say more? I hope lessons will be learned by some early delete voters. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Wait per Jan olieslagers. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Apanuggpak and Finnusertop. The article has been expanded and appears to meet GNG. That the majority of sources are in Finnish does not make them unreliable or unverifiable. Google Translate can do a reasonable job on most major languages nowadays, at least allowing the gist of a source to be gleaned. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete was not notable enough to report in 1987 so 2014 speculation about the supposed event does not make it notable now. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep - Relying on a single, unverifiable source, it sounds quite apocryphal. Extraordinary claims require more than this. Since the article has now been expanded and includes many reliable refs it meets WP:GNG and should be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's really nothing here. This is a single newspaper credulously reporting the statement of two co-pilots, 25 years after the purported incident, in the absence of any official record of the incident. The flight captain made no report at the time; conveniently, this "revelation" comes out after he has passed away and the 1987 logbooks have wandered off into whatever part of history all lost documents go. Even taking the article claims at face value (which I am loathe to, to say the least), this event had no actual impact: no effect on the plane, no effect on the flight at all, no political impact. In the unlikely event that this becomes a wider political topic later, we can revisit it then. Now, however, this simply does not meet either the subject matter inclusion guidelines for airliner incidents nor the notability guidelines in general. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The alleged incident wouldn't necessarily have to be true to be notable; it could also become a notable unverified claim if it were to get traction and coverage in a variety of reliable sources. So far, however, all I could find was a Yle report summarizing the claims from the initial Helsingin Sanomat article. [17] These are both reliable sources but by themselves this isn't enough. We'd want to see, at least, some independent reporting on the co-pilots' allegations. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 25 years on and still no evidence of notability... –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if I may say so as the author of this article.

Notability: Practically every newspaper and every electronic media has covered this matter on the same day it was published by Helsingin Sanomat. The coverage continued for some more days. Finnish politicians (former cabinet members) are outraged, former head of the Finnish Security Intelligence Service has also expressed having been dismayed by the news.

The article now has 19 different media citations of this news in Finland (from a dozen different media, most of them known to even en-Wiki), all of which can be found on-line. I would call that notability. Use Google translate in case you have doubts.

As stated in an additional paragraph in introduction, this incident is part of a string of very significant incidents:

• Kaleva (1940)
• Korean Air Lines Flight 902 (1978)
• Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (1983)
• Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (2014)

Reliability: Not a single voice in Finland has been heard stating that the claims of the pilots would be false or invented. Even if reported back in 1987, there still would have been the word of the pilots against anyone who doubted the truth of their report.

Defense experts in Finland, our top missile expert from the National Defence University of Finland (Professor Stefan Forss) as well as the former second-in-command (Colonel Ahti Lappi) of the anti-aircraft branch of the Finnish military have commented on the matter, expressing do doubts as to the truth of the alleged incident.

Thus, the article now has independent assessment of the pilot’s story.

Not reported: If reported and leaked to the press, the leakers would have faced, according to the penal code of Finland at the time, a maximum jail sentence of two years for harming the relations of Finland and a foreign country, for all practical purposes, the Soviet Union. This clause was added to the legislation of Finland in 1948. — Finnish Wikipedia on Finlandization:

“Itsesensuurilla oli myös juridinen perusteensa: vuonna 1948 rikoslakiin lisättiin kappale, jonka mukaan Suomen ja vieraan valtion, käytännössä lähinnä Neuvostoliiton, suhteita vahingoittavasta materiaalista voitiin tuomita enimmillään kahdeksi vuodeksi vankeuteen. Rikokseksi määriteltiin vieraan valtion julkinen ja tahallinen halventaminen "painotuotteella, kirjoituksella, kuvallisella esityksellä tahi muulla ilmaisuvälineellä". Virallinen syyttäjä sai nostaa syytteen kyseisessä lainkohdassa määritellystä rikoksesta vain tasavallan presidentin määräyksestä ja ensimmäisenä oikeusasteena tällaisten tapausten käsittelyssä oli hovioikeus. — Kemppinen, Kullervo: Lakitiedon Pikkujättiläinen, s. 653. Porvoo: WSOY, 1985.

— ‘Selfcensorship also had a legal basis: in 1948 a paragraph was added to the Finnish penal code, according to which producing materials that harm the relations of Finland and a foreign country, in practice mainly the Soviet Union, a person could be sentenced to jail for a maximum of two years. The public and deliberate defaming of a foreign country would be punishable if it had been done by “printed matters, a writing, a picture or any other means of expression.” A public prosecutor was allowed to press charges only on the orders of the president of the country, and the first instance for the trial would have been the court of appeals.’ — Kemppinen, Kullervo: Lakitiedon Pikkujättiläinen (‘The Little Giant of Legal Knowledge’), p. 653. Porvoo: WSOY, 1985.

— In 1987 this was still a very real threat in Finland.

Tabloid newspaper: This simply is not true, in the negative sense of this expression (i.e. yellow press). Helsingin Sanomat is the biggest newspaper in all of Scandinavia, and the most authoritative print media in Finland. It is true that its physical appearance today is a tabloid format (due to the necessity of have the same format in print and on-line), but until a couple of years ago it was printed in broadsheet format. It is generally not bought at newsstands, but it is ordered and delivered to homes all across the country. It is definitely not a scandal-seeking media.

Please read the updated version of the article, and reconsider (those who are in favour of deletion.) Apanuggpak (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I can confirm the claims made by Apanuggpak in the comment above, particularly in relation to the reliable and verifiable nature of the Finnish language sources. Recognizing that there is a reason why there has not been any sources since 1987 until very recently, it's WP:NOTNEWS either since the coverage has been in-depth and varied. Furthermore, it's not our job to assess if the pilots are telling the truth - this assessment has already been done by the sources and given their reliability and consistency there is no reason to doubt them. As for the tricky question of (political) impact (WP:EFFECT) raised by Squeamish Ossifrage, this is an important question and it might be too early to say. However, the article does meet WP:GNG and thus conforms with WP:EVENT: "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect". There is historical significance as the authorities' response was characterized by the atmosphere of Finlandization, and this aspect is covered in the article. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable with no verifiable sources--Petebutt (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Petebutt: - sources are verifiable, whether or not you understand Finnish. Mjroots (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify what makes the sources unverifiable? For instance, them being in Finnish does not make them unverifiable (see WP:SOURCEACCESS) or unreliable. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree with Apanuggpak on all claims. Is the consensus here really that the biggest newspaper in Finland is yellow press, and that Finnish Government officials are unreliable? I have to point out that aviation incidents can sometimes be notable even without deaths or other permanent damage. Especially those from the Cold War era. I also agree with Arxiloxos. Ceosad (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep: Hell, it was on all the radio news shows here in Canada, and the Toronto Star. Enough, snow this one already. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Veritable sources, mostly in Finnish, understood by at least 5 milj. people. --Abc10 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I respect the early request for deletion, as vigilance is required to keep WP clear of dross, but it may have been a bit premature given the sources now in the article. It is now an obvious WP:SNOWBALL, and should be speedily kept. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure a speedy close is appropriate to an article with lots of issues, filling most of the article with mentions in the Finnish press still doesnt make it notable, with much speculation and assumption made years later it is clearly tabloid fodder but wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 'But [GNG] guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage. Having sources that under all circumstances meet this guideline means that it is notable, and therefore, worthy of an article.' See this:WP:FARAWAY. Ceosad (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read Faraway, that took me to Notability re geographic scope and I ended up WP:Diverse which says "...sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted" Is the Finnish language reporting diverse? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I know, the most important sources are reasonably independent. A few of the sources could, and should, be removed and consolidated because they are pretty much identical, and not independent from the Helsingin Sanomat and STT. (Both are owned by the Sanoma News. STT sells news to many smaller newspapers, who usually don't even edit them.) See references 28. to 34., just for a perfectly typical example of Finnish "copy-and-paste" journalism. They are almost identical clones. Vast majority of the news in Finland can be traced back to the STT. I think that (atleast) Nelonen Media, Yle and Uusi Suomi are most(ly) independent from the Helsingin Sanomat in this case. Ceosad (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, a flurry of articles published at roughly the same time in many or most papers is sometimes the result of legitimate journalism across the board, but is frequently simply the propagation of stories provided by one of the major wire services (especially the Associated Press). I have less than zero familiarity with Finnish media, but I largely assume at least some of this reporting is not independent. There was an offhand mention of coverage of this topic in the Toronto Star; I couldn't find that after a cursory search, but if this was the subject of examination outside of Finland, that would go some ways to overcoming my WP:EVENT-based objections. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:46, 25 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! 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Albuquerque Sol FC season[edit]

2014 Albuquerque Sol FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A season article for an amateur soccer/football club seems overdone The Banner talk 12:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Consensus usually holds that a club must be playing in a fully-professional league to have an individual season article, which is not the case here. Furthermore fails WP:GNG. 15:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a season article for a team competing in a league whose 63-teams widely cover the United States and Canada. This particular club's paid home attendance averaged over 900 in 2014 league play. Each match listed in the this article's league schedule table includes a reference to the official game report either on the United Soccer League's official site or elsewhere. References to major-market newspapers give specifics of the Sol's inaugural season. In general support of Premier Development League clubs meeting the notability standard for inclusion of season articles, note that 16 PDL clubs currently earn a berth in the annual 68-team Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. If only for the sake of comparing the season performance of MLS, NASL, and USL Pro clubs against semi-pro PDL competition (where not infrequently the PDL side will advance) PDL season pages are a useful addition to Wikipedia. Gatomasgordo (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable and playing in a minor league = not fully profesional. Kante4 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well-referenced with sources, demonstrating the topic meets WP:GNG. If only similar articles for the umpteenth level of English football were as well referenced! Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The USL PDL league includes fully pro teams as well as teams that are a mixture of amateur and pro players. Also, as Nfitz points out, many English football teams at the amateur level have season pages (For example: 2012–13_Aldershot_Town_F.C._season). USL PDL teams frequently play sanctioned matches against higher level pro teams in the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup, while teams at a lower level on the U.S. soccer pyramid do not. Sativasativa (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. It is pity that you discredit your own comments by stating that the professional club Aldershot Town F.C. is an amateur club. The Banner talk 22:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehm, mr. Sativa. I do not have the idea that your are a genuine editor, so I inform you of this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gatomasgordo. The Banner talk 23:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[File:|25px|link=]] doh! Nfitz (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the case that I know user SativaSativa outside of Wikipedia, and have encouraged him to become a Wiki contributor. I did also tell him today that the 2014 Albuquerque Sol article I created has been nominated for deletion. I did not, however, supply him with arguments or actively recruit his participation in this deletion discussion. He and I have both acted in good faith. Gatomasgordo (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no need for the rudeness, Mr. Banner. Clearly I am not as well versed on the topic as you are, but I was simply trying to make a case that a team on a similar pyramid level in the English system has season pages. Aldershot just came up first in my search because they are the first alphabetically. I'm sure if I dug around enough I could find more season pages for other teams on that level that are not fully professional. Obviously I don't edit the Wikipedia much, but that doesn't make my opinion invalid. I don't see any reason why this season page should be deleted. Sativasativa (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A sockpuppet investigation is not rude, although it is a harsh method. But let the technical whizz-kids do their research and based on their result we can tell who was rude. The Banner talk 21:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I've been doing some reading, trying to get up to speed with the topic, and I finally found this article from the Football WikiProject: WP:FOOTYN which has notability criteria for football players, clubs, and leagues, but not for season pages. Does the same notability criterion apply for season pages as applies to the clubs themselves? If not, I think it should actually be spelled out on that page to avoid confusion like this in the future. Sativasativa (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:NSEASONS. It says "articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements." The league is not a fully professional league. Kingjeff (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — looks like it does indeed fail WP:NSEASONS as the league the team resides in, USL Premier Development League, is apparently an amateur-level league, not a professional one. --slakr^\ talk / 04:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 03:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of technology companies in Quebec City[edit]

List of technology companies in Quebec City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Rather random list of companies, almost half of them links to disambiguation pages (5 out of 12) and several articles make no mention of Quebec at all. In this form useless and ready for removal. The Banner talk 12:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I recommend someone start a proper list from the contents of Category:Companies based in Quebec and its subcategories before wasting time on such a narrow subset, and there is next to no valid content in this list as the nom describes. Only one article even mentions Quebec City, one more mentions Quebec generally, and the remainder are companies based elsewhere or undisambiguated links. There was even an entry for a Canadian defense agency (which I removed), not a company at all. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither "technology" nor "in Quebec City" are tightly enough defined to make this a worthwhile list. --Michig (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Generally speaking, these sorts of articles are organized on larger-than-city geographical areas (I know there are vaguely parallel articles by state for the US, for example). Normally, the solution would be to upmerge. But, as noted, "technology company" is simply far too broad and poorly defined to make any such list of use. While this is not a bundled nomination, the closing admin may wish to apply a similar fate to List of technology companies in Montreal, List of technology companies in Ottawa, and List of technology companies in Vancouver. As confirmation that these aren't a distinct topic, these four "List of technology companies in [Canadian city]" are the only four lists of technology companies in articlespace. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:36, 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. Michig (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian McIver[edit]

Gillian McIver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To be honest, this has all the trappings of being a speedy deletion candidate, but the claims of creating a (non-notable) collective and exhibiting internationally has made me opt for AfD. Unfortunately I can't see a great deal online, other than brief mentions as part of group exhibitions. Sionk (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 11:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find anything by way of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All the coverage I could find of the subject was written by the subject. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't see signficant coverage in third party reliable sources. Fails GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:59, 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.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Kamvari[edit]

Omid Kamvari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of this article has requested deletion via OTRS (ticket #2014091110017035, for those with OTRS permissions). With no independent sources, I'm inclined to agree that the page shoudl be deleted. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I respect his right to ask for deletion but it would appear he is notable. The sources may not be inline but there would seem to be coverage in fairly well-respected international architecture publications. If he really is responsible for the buildings detailed in the article (some of which are notable in their own right) then I'm inclined to think he'd be considered a notable architect by our standards. But I can't read the ticket - is there a request for clean up or deletion or is it just a straight request for deletion? I'd be happy to work on the article if the subject is simply upset at having a messy biography. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into the details, it's specifically a request for deletion rather than cleanup. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On specific grounds (inaccuracy, privacy, self-deprecation)? Without a reason for deletion, there wouldn't seem to be grounds for deleting the article of a notable architect. As has been tested in the past, there's no opt-out clause. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's just this minute pointed out that the content appears to be copied from his LinkedIn profile and CV. However, after discussion it seems he's not averse to having a well-written and policy compliant article; I think now that his concern was more the embarassment of having such a poorly written article associated with him. If you would like to clean it up, with suitable sources etc., then please do go for it. Based on his last email, I'm going to Withdraw this nomination. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:11, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 00:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: Beginning of the End[edit]

X-Men: Beginning of the End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Is it an original work? If no, it is a copyright violations. If yes, then it is in violation of WP:SYNTH Jayakumar RG (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:V and thus WP:NF. Author appears to be its purported director, and this may simply be WP:MADEUP, but lacking information I am unwilling to call it synth or copyvio. Being unsourcable, this definitely lacks notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I can't find even a whisper out there about this film- this Wikipedia article is the only place that this is mentioned. I understand that it's extremely hard for fan films to receive coverage, but we require coverage in reliable sources before we can have an article. This just isn't notable at this point in time and we can't have articles for films that someone came up with WP:ONEDAY as an idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:40, 26 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 The Ultimate Fighter: Latin America. j⚛e decker^talk 04:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Vera[edit]

Marlon Vera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights. Does not meet WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Latin America Right now he's a non-notable MMA fighter with nothing to show he should have his own article.Mdtemp (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect He obviously fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Of course he may become notable, but right now a redirect seems like the most reasonable course of action. Papaursa (talk) 22:32, 27 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 00:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trilok Kumar Jain[edit]

Trilok Kumar Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

vanity bio. fails WP:PROF. bio of a university prof, all primary or self published sources, but few independent sources to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio.  Ohc ^¡digame! 04:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sign of notability. Tried Googling, but nothing came up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Based on self-published sources, where the subject need to be verified with reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:46, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Body Liners[edit]

Butterfly Body Liners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sure this is notable. Appreciate others thoughts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - just an ad for a non-notable product. Sources are an opinion piece by the company's CEO pushing the product in the Washington Post and a PR piece. A search does not turn up more. Lemnaminor (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of sufficient substantive coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 03:54, 30 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. Deor (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Agarwal[edit]

Ravi Agarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:PROF. bio of a university prof, but there are few sources, and it's impossible to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio.  Ohc ^¡digame! 02:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (67 is an extremely high h-index for mathematics, generally a low-citation field, and he has many individual very highly cited papers) and #C8 (editor in chief of four journals, all from a respected publisher). See also [18]. Nominator should be advised of WP:BEFORE: you're allowed to look outside Wikipedia to ascertain notabilty, but the journal editorships at least were already there in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Does appear to be a pretty distinguished academic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep. PROF C1 is definitive, but if it weren't, the number of reviews of his books in SIAM Review, American Mathematical Monthly (those are shorter reviews) and American Scientist would reach well exceed WP:AUTHOR. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:13, 30 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! 05:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mugshots[edit]

The Mugshots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparently non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. References inadequate, probable COI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Deleted in 2006 AfD, still doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:11, 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, j⚛e decker^talk 02:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No sign of notability. Tried Googling, but hardly anything came up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Added new references. --Coatlx (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)— Coatlx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrice Thompson[edit]

Tyrice Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this individual meets WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable.--Yankees10 03:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He was principally a backup wide receiver at Arizona State (starting only 6 of 46 games), and he had only 16 catches and 1 touchdown in 46 games played. No evidence has been cited or found to indicate that his college football career would satisfy either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. While his stabbing death at the Martini Ranch bar did garner some local news coverage, I don't think that coverage is sufficient to justify a stand-alone article. If additional sources are uncovered focusing in a significant way on Thompson and his life, as opposed to simply his death as a victim of a random criminal act, I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable college football player who satisfies the specific notability guidelines of neither WP:NCOLLATH nor WP:GRIDIRON, with insufficient coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The coverage surrounding his unfortunate death is excluded per the one-event rule of WP:BIO1E. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:07, 27 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 06:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Qualifiers broadcasting rights[edit]

European Qualifiers broadcasting rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a redirect to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying broadcasting rights and its original title, moved by Nickst to a most correct and standard title. The problem is that European Qualifiers broadcasting rights is IMHO not valid (and wrong) as redirect to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying. The "European Qualifiers" could be the teams of any other sport (or other, as the EuroSong) in any year. Just for example: limited to football, this may be the title for other UEFA Euro qualifyings (as 2020), to UEFA Champions League, Europa League, to the UEFA teams engaged in FIFA World Cup qualifying etc. So, is very hard to imagine it also as a disambiguation page. I would tag it for speedy deletion per WP:R3, but I preferred a prior request. Thanks. Dэя-Бøяg 21:53, 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!*} 00:33, 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!*} 01:53, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker^talk 03:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang A.M. – A New World of Sound[edit]

Wolfgang A.M. – A New World of Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability either WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 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!*} 01:50, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker^talk 03:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gwar Lite[edit]

Gwar Lite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability either WP:NSONGS, WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 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!*} 01:49, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker^talk 03:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stripper Christmas Summer Weekend[edit]

Stripper Christmas Summer Weekend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability either WP:NSONGS, WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 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!*} 01:49, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vida (Fuego album)[edit]

Vida (Fuego album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Future album. The article has no citations. There is no discussion in the music press that I could find, though the words "fuego" and "vida" are very common, so there might be some press somewhere. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:34, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fuego (singer) --j⚛e decker^talk 18:44, 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!*} 01:49, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker^talk 03:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves Going Single[edit]

Slaves Going Single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find any WP:RSes to support notability either WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 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!*} 01:47, 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. Michig (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dominic Kinsella[edit]

Joseph Dominic Kinsella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm tentative on this but offer it up for general consideration: There's no notability criterion for rowers, and perhaps there should be. This seems to be a good test case as the subject's only claim to notability is that he rowed in the 1984 Boat Race (i.e. Oxford v. Cambridge on the Thames). Some other members of the crews that day have articles but usually they went on to Olympic participation (or, in two cases, became Goldman Sachs partners). Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Here are some reasons I think the entry should be kept:

- approximately 7 million people watch the boat race in the UK each year. It is further broadcast to approximately 120 countries where it is watched by an additional c.200 million viewers. The Boat Race would not be very interesting without the crew members all of whom contribute to the strength of the boat and are equally important to the success of the event

- surely more information is better than less given that the crew members are already listed on wikipedia (List of Cambridge University Boat Race crews), unless wikipedia needs to cap the amount of information it can hold?

- most crew members go on to achieve further notable things in life. I do not know if Kinsella has done so but, if he has, a wikipedia entry will prompt additional information to be added to the entry

MJT21 (talk) 09:37, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands, the article reads that he participated in one boat race and went to school. Nothing else. Maybe there is more out there about this person. However, I note that the article creator has also been creating a number of recent bios of prior alumni from this school. Given demonstrated capability of producing more information for these short biographies, I don't think it is the case in this instance. Then again, I am often wrong on these AfD discussions recently, after a seven year WP hiatus. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Apologies if this is not the case but, on an initial search. it would appear that User:Fiachra10003 does not exist? MJT21 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted Keep, so to avoid confusion I have struck out your previous Keep. I don't know where you are searching, but the links in the signature of the nomination pointed to User:Fiachra10003 and to User talk:Fiachra10003; the user's contributions are at Special:Contributions/Fiachra10003, linked from the page history, and at the foot of the contributions page are the usual links to details of the account. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious me, I've seen some low, low tactics used in Articles for Deletion discussions, but I've never before seen someone suggest that a nominator doesn't exist! Wikipedio, ergo sum ;) Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: it may indeed be true that millions watch the boat race, but that's not a sufficient argument to keep this page. It's a Knockout was watched by millions, but we don't allow pages for each of the contestants. The boat race itself is worthy of a page, but the individual participants, many of whom never reach international level, are not. Delete. —Bristolbottom ^talk 18:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and move to close. Even without my contribution, three editors provided policy-based reasons for deletion and one (the creator) opined for deletion on entirely non-policy grounds. Not sure how much more consensus is needed but I'm happy to oblige - the subject doesn't inherit notability for his single appearance at a notable event, doesn't pass any of our Special Notability Guidelines for sportspeople and obviously doesn't pass WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and nothing to show any notable accomplishments as an athlete.Mdtemp (talk) 18:27, 25 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 00:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let There Be Gwar[edit]

Let There Be Gwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found a few mentions of the documentary of the same name, but only trivial mentions or inclusions in discographies for this album. Fails notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 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!*} 01:45, 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. w/o prejudice to the addition of a redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: All In j⚛e decker^talk 07:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loisa Andalio[edit]

Loisa Andalio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable enough. Was only a contestant of the show she joined. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 00:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Evict, or alternatively, redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: All In - No notability yet outside of PBB. If she starts a showbiz career and it takes off, she could probably have a separate article, but right now, it's TOO SOON. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:21, 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!*} 01:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Narutolovehinata5.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Food[edit]

Divine Food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidenc of meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep Meets WP:NF's other attributes section as it is still screening at festivals more than five years after initial release, IE: 1998 [19][20], 2006 [21], 2008 [22], and as recently as 2013 [23][24] and has received some decent reviews: [25] and [26][27]. Yes, this will never get the coverage of some big-budget, major studio blockbuster, but for what it is, it is just notable enough for Wikipedia. Needs use of available sources, but addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 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, j⚛e decker^talk 01:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's spot on analysis - Needs some TLC. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:04, 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!*} 01:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's Excellent analysis and passes WP:NF#Other evidence of notability .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw vomination I'm convinced by the excellent comments above. Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diskreet[edit]

Diskreet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

unref article on living people. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. There are quite a few reviews of their releases online, but not all of these are from reliable sources. There's a very reliable album review from AllMusic and an EP review from Blabbermouth.net though, and if you couple these with the fact that their releases have been on blue-linked labels (Siege of Amida Records and Candlelight Records) then I think these guys just about scrape the bar set out at WP:BAND. More coverage in reliable sources would help their cause significantly, however. — sparklism ^hey! 09:56, 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, j⚛e decker^talk 01:02, 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!*} 01:42, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Inferno (musical)[edit]

Disco Inferno (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough coverage to establish notability. Deleted in 2007 AfD, swiftly recreated. May be worth salting. Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 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, j⚛e decker^talk 01:02, 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!*} 01:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. In addition to the coverage of the failed UK tour [28], frequent low-cost and amateur productions get brief coverage in assorted publications in a variety of locations around the world, attesting to its persistent low-level notability. Among the HighBeam and Google hits are Irish Times [29], Birmingham Post [30], Daily Record (Scotland) [31], Isle of Man Newspapers [32], The Patriot-News (Harrisburg, PA) [33], Deseret News (very brief) [34], Hamburger Abendblatt [35]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:38, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 03:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sundar Das[edit]

Baba Sundar Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Certainly sounds notable, but I couldn't verify it with reliable sources. It has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 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, j⚛e decker^talk 01:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]