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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In-Place Count Sort[edit]

In-Place Count Sort (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)

Utter bunk; probably a hoax. The "sorting algorithm" presented here is just an obfuscated way of doing

for i from 0 to n:
 a[i] = i

No wonder there are no references. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I found one unverifiable cite in google books and no hits in google scholar. Ghits are also sparse. Not enough WP:RS to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of reliable sources.-- danntm ^T _C 20:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This appears to be intended as an algorithm for in-place permutation, a problem with some history of actual research behind it (see [1]). But I don't think there's anything worth saving in the current article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suppose that it could be used as a simple example in In-place algorithm. I don't believe there are any research articles on it because it is of no practical or theoretical value. int i must equal the minimum integer in a sequence and the sequence must contain all of the integers between the minimum and maximum integers in a sequence with no repeats, otherwise the algorithm enters an infinite loop or an array out of bounds. I am One of Many (talk) 05:49, 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Sturgis[edit]

Joey Sturgis (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, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of all the sources in the article, the interview is the only one that writes so much as a single sentence about Sturgis. The article was prodded for these reasons, the prod was removed by User:Joeyismusic without improvement. Huon (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A single interview does not establish notability, and is a primary source. I see no fully independent coverage in reliable sources. Producing recordings by notable performers does not, in itself, confer notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Keep, based on the best of the sources brought forward in this debate. Thanks to those who have done so. No one needs to insult me to get me to change my recommendation. Just show me the sources. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey is a worldwide known producer and this page is incredibly educational to many, it's a great source for people wanting to find previous work of Joeys, it is also a 100% accurate source which is great for students of music wishing to do assignments/reports on him, if you do not believe he is notable then maybe you should check this http://www.allmusic.com/artist/joey-sturgis-mn0000938432/credits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.193.149 (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Notability is doing something significant and therefore affects other people. He has worked with people to help there music which in turn is listened to by thousands of people. The simple factor of googling a name and having actual photos and information confirms popularity or knowledge about that one person or thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.231.8 (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some news articles: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep14/articles/joey-sturgis.htm http://geargods.net/features/interview-joey-sturgis/ http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/blessthefall_recording_new_album_with_joey_sturgis http://www.revolvermag.com/?s=joey+sturgis&x=0&y=0 http://www.underthegunreview.net/2014/03/11/utg-exclusive-producer-joey-sturgis-picks-his-10-favorite-projects/ http://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3290723/joey-sturgis-mind-behind-music-interview/ http://www.absolutepunk.net/journal.php?do=showentry&e=353812 http://mindequalsblown.net/interviews/interview-joey-sturgis http://blog.haulix.com/post/76985145531/industry-spotlight-joey-sturgis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyismusic (talk • contribs) 02:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The new Sound On Sound article[2] and the earlier Vents magazine article[3] combine to satisfy WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey is the reason countless bands have been successful. You have to be just picking on him because you got butthurt if you think he isn't notable. He's the biggest name producer in the modern metal scene.

Joey Sturgis is arguably one of the most successful, prolific and influential producers in metal music. By definition, notability is "A person of distinction or great reputation" as stated here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/notable By that logic, someone who has had a visible and prominent influence in the creation, development and evolution of one hugely popular genre of music in the last five years is inarguably notable. His credentials include Asking Alexandria, Attack Attack, The Devil Wears Prada, Emmure and We Came As Romans among others; all of which are established and hugely popular acts. For clarification of this statement, please refer to each band's respective Wiki pages, Facebook pages or simply Google them. Without him, these bands would arguably have had a largely different sound (due to his involvement in the writing, producing, recording and mixing of their albums) and as such, we can conclude that metal music would have an indescribably different landscape. Joey's work is integral to the success of these artists and the defining of an entire niche of modern music, and to argue that this does not quantify notability seems biased.

Joey will be appearing on Creative Live as seen here: https://www.creativelive.com/conferences/mastering-metal-mixing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.5.173 (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For more info on Joey Sturgis...

Gold Record Mentions:

http://www.hellhoundmusic.com/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-asking-alexandria-the-final-episode/

http://gigzealot.com/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://musicexistence.com/blog/2014/04/29/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://uglyscene.com/2014/04/30/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://ventsmagazine.com/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://altrocklive.com/blog/2014/04/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://ignitemusicmag.com/2014/04/28/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://pluggedinpromotions.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

http://fifteenminutemedia.tumblr.com/page/2

http://www.arfadia.com/blog/view/84965530971/Joey+Sturgis+Receives+Gold+Record+for+work+with+Asking+Alexandria

http://www.rockstarsglued.com/2014/04/28/joey-sturgis-receives-gold-record-for-work-with-asking-alexandria/

Interviews:

http://geargods.net/features/interview-joey-sturgis/

http://thewellzstreetjournal.com/2013/11/20/interview-with-joey-sturgis-producer-at-foundation-recording-studios/

http://mindequalsblown.net/interviews/interview-joey-sturgis

http://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3290723/joey-sturgis-mind-behind-music-interview/

http://www.absolutepunk.net/journal.php?do=showentry&e=353812

http://www.underthegunreview.net/2014/03/11/utg-exclusive-producer-joey-sturgis-picks-his-10-favorite-projects/

http://blog.haulix.com/post/76985145531/industry-spotlight-joey-sturgis

http://audiogeekzine.com/2010/07/exclusive-interview-with-music-producer-joey-sturgis/

http://www.killthemusic.net/blog/interview-joey-sturgis

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Joey-Sturgis/1566411725

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/11345208/joey_sturgis_interview/

http://thepit-se.com/2014/02/12/backstage-pass-joey-sturgis/

http://getinmedia.com/articles/music-careers/joey-sturgis-producing-heavy-metal-box

Articles on Joey:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep14/articles/joey-sturgis.htm

http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/crown_the_empire_enter_the_studio_with_joey_sturgis - has a mention posted from Rise Records

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep14/articles/joey-sturgis.htm

Here are a few of his products he has released and where they have been mentioned.

Pixelator:

http://newnoisemagazine.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-brand-audio-processor/

http://ventsmagazine.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-brand-new-audio-processor/

http://www.caesarlivenloud.com/2014/07/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-brand-new.html

http://www.hellhoundmusic.com/producer-joey-sturgis-releases-brand-new-audio-processor-pixelator/

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product-alerts-older-than-2-months/938543-joey-sturgis-pixelator-plugin.html

http://en.audiofanzine.com/plugin-lo-fi/jst/pixelator/news/a.play,n.18481.html

http://www.magesy.xyz/55000-joey-sturgis-tones-pixelator-v1.0.3-win.html

http://www.kvraudio.com/news/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator---audio-resolution-manipulator-for-sound-design-and-destruction-26538

http://rekkerd.org/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-plugin/

http://makehiphop.com/2014/07/02/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-audio-resolution-manipulator-for-sound-design-and-destruction/

http://audiok.info/joey-sturgis-tones-pixelator-v103-vst-x86-x64-win

http://www.moinf.info/news/joey-sturgis-pixelator-29-06-14

http://beta.producerlabs.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-plugin

http://smashyorecords.co.uk/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-audio-resolution-manipulator-for-sound-design-and-destruction/

http://en.zicos.com/proaudio/i29847319-Joey-Sturgis-Pixelator-Plugin.html

http://www.harmonycentral.com/news/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-brand-new-audio-processor

http://synthwise.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-audio-resolution-manipulator-sound-design-and-destruction/2014/07/02

Clip:

http://www.emusician.com/gear/1332/joey-sturgis-releases-jst-clip/46197

http://www.kvraudio.com/news/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-jst-clip-peak-clipper-plug-in-25677

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2014/04/16/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-jst-clip-plugin-peak-clipper-for-mixing-mastering/

http://hangout.altsounds.com/news/165520-gear-joey-sturgis-releases-peak-clipper-jst.html

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2014/04/18/peak-clipper-plug-in/

http://www.steppingoutrecords.com/news/music-blog/entry/gear-joey-sturgis-releases-new-peak-clipper-jst-clip-plug-in

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product-alerts-older-than-2-months/920620-joey-sturgis-tones-releases-jst-clip.html

http://rekkerd.org/joey-sturgis-tones-jst-clip-clipper/

http://newnoisemagazine.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-brand-audio-processor/

http://www.caesarlivenloud.com/2014/04/joey-sturgis-releases-new-peak-clipper.html

http://en.zicos.com/proaudio/i29766974-Joey-Sturgis-Tones-releases-JST-Clip-Peak-Clipper-Plug-In.html

http://www.moinf.info/news/joey-sturgis-clip-08-04-14

http://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3290723/joey-sturgis-mind-behind-music-interview/

http://smashyorecords.blogspot.com/2014/04/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-clip-peak.html

http://www.1200dreams.com/news/208/joey-sturgis-introduces-jst-clip

http://www.gearjunkies.com/news_info.php?news_id=9326

http://pluggedinpromotions.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/joey-sturgis-releases-new-peak-clipper-jst-clip-plug-in/

http://ampsandgreenscreens.tumblr.com/post/83163696751/joey-sturgis-releases-new-peak-clipper-jst-clip

http://www.rockstarsglued.com/2014/04/18/joey-sturgis-releases-new-peak-clipper-jst-clip-plug-in/

http://www.alt-uk.net/2014/04/14/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-jst-clip/

http://mixingmastering.co.uk/joey-sturgis-introduces-jst-clip-plugin/

Gain Reduction:

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2014/02/25/joey-sturgis-releases-signature-vocal-compressor-saturator-plugin-gain-reduction/

http://www.hellhoundmusic.com/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor/

http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/joey_sturgis_releases_new_vocal_plug_in_guitar_giveaway

http://www.recordingmag.com/news/display/890.html

http://rekkerd.org/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-pixelator-plugin/

http://amplified.tv/joey-sturgis-releases-new-plug-in/

http://www.moinf.info/news/joey-sturgis-gain-reduction-04-02-14

http://skopemag.com/2014/02/04/new-video-by-jst-gain-reduction

http://www.audio-desk.com/joey-sturgis-tones-releases-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor/

http://pluggedinpromotions.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor/

http://newnoisemagazine.com/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor/

http://geargods.net/review/review-joey-sturgis-tones-gain-reduction-plug/

http://www.alt-uk.net/2014/02/25/joey-sturgis-releases-gain-reduction-vocal-plugin/

http://bravewords.com/news/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor

http://www.bigcitythoughts.com/newsreviews/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor

http://www.gearjunkies.com/news_info.php?news_id=9090

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product-alerts-older-than-2-months/903580-joey-sturgis-gain-reduction-plugin.html

http://www.harmonycentral.com/news/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-quotgain-reductionquot-vocal-compressor

http://reviewsfromthecave.com/4334/joey-sturgis-releases-groundbreaking-gain-reduction-vocal-compressor/

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/gain-reduction-plugin-promises-to-be-your-new-go-to-compressor-for-vocals-594254

Drumforge:

http://www.emusician.com/gear/1332/drumforge-modular-sample-library-available-now/47885

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=3698740

http://www.alt-uk.net/2014/05/05/joey-sturgis-drumforge-now-available-for-pre-order/

http://musicupdated.com/news/7239/joey-sturgis-to-release-%22drumforge%22-sample-library

http://www.rockstarsglued.com/2014/05/05/introducing-drumforge-a-revolution-in-drum-samples/

http://shuffler.fm/artists/drumforge

http://forum.studio.se/index.php/topic/106310-drumforge-joey-sturgis-egna-trumplug/

http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/introducing_drumforge_a_revolution_in_drum_samples

http://www.toddstarphotography.com/blog/2014/6/news-drumforge-modular-sample-library-available-now

http://en.zicos.com/proaudio/i29842528-Introducing-Drumforge.html

http://ignitemusicmag.com/2014/06/30/drumforge-modular-sample-library-available-now-features-over-50-unique-drum-instruments/

http://www.arfadia.com/blog/view/86468252155/Making+Sure+Our+Stereo+Spread+Is+Wide+Drumforge

http://www.keyboardmag.com/gear/1183/drumforge-sample-library-available-now/31088

http://newnoisemagazine.com/drumforge-modular-sample-library-now-features-50-unique-drum-instruments/

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product-alerts-older-than-2-months/937839-introducing-drumforge.html

http://ventsmagazine.com/drumforge-modular-sample-library-available-now-features-over-50-unique-drum-instruments/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Mohrhauser (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Far better to add the highest quality of the sources, like that Sound on Sound piece, to the actual article than listing dozens of them here as bare URLs, Rick Mohrhauser. Please read WP:CITATION OVERKILL and WP:TLDR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per newfound sources.-- danntm ^T _C 20:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Highest Quality" sources are always going to be debateable unless Wiki puts out a list of publications it considers to be highest quality. You must admit that it is really annoying to attack a page for not having enough sources, and then when more sources are provided in its defense you are requesting "only the highest quality" sources. What happens when the highest quality sources are given, will you have some other complaint about how there are too many or the highest quality sources aren't valid or they are out of date or they're not in the right format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.5.173 (talk) 01:33, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vayle[edit]

Lee Vayle (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 a notable author in that he wrote a hagiography of William M. Branham. There are no secondary sources on the page and none that I could find. There is no talk page for the article. Taxee (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Notability cannot be bestowed or derived from an association with a notable individual until that person claiming to be “Notable” is noteworthy in their own right. As such, in researching Mr. Vayle there is little or virtually no coverage to establish notability on their own merits. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking independent referencing. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 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 Redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mabel Matiz discography[edit]

Mabel Matiz discography (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 page that could easily just be redirected to the singer-given the fact that there are not alot of songs on here. Wgolf (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1595 club[edit]

1595 club (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 about a club that has no coverage, much less the significant independent coverage required by GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no independent sources found. ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article has no coverage that would meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:17, 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. without prejudice to a redirect following deletion targeted to Suicide in Australia j⚛e decker^talk 16:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Suicide[edit]

Australian Suicide (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 wrestler. No reliable sources (just FB and Twitter) and no claims that would show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No view on this article itself, but if deleted, recreate as redirect to Suicide in Australia. -- saberwyn 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An unsourced BLP about a wrestler who's actual identity is unknown. No indication that this individual is a notable wrestler (or is notable for anything else, for that matter). Papaursa (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While a redirect would be plausible to Suicide in Australia, but I would recommend a deletion first because the content is so much unrelated. There's not really anything here to back up notability of the individual that the article currently describes. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:37, 1 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. I'm also deleting the redirect to Professional wrestling in Australia, because Buddy Murphy is not actually discussed or mentioned (or even listed) anywhere in that article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Murphy[edit]

Buddy Murphy (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)

Unsourced BLP about an aspiring pro wrestler. No sources and no claims of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, rigth now, he isn't notable --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an unsourced BLP about someone in training to be a professional wrestler. Papaursa (talk) 21:07, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Fire[edit]

Heart of Fire (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)

3-Page comic book article with no indication of notability. Not every comic ever written deserves a Wikipedia article, they have to have some notability. This is one that doesn't. Nathan121212 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appropriate for a Star Wars wiki, but Wikipedia has no requirement to cover every comic. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A three page comic story doesn't really seem worthy of having a page unless there's significant coverage of it from other sources. As of now, the page has nothing indicating any notability. kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:09, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Frey[edit]

Greg Frey (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 *Seen a Mike* 19:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet criteria in Notability for college athlete *Seen a Mike* 20:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While he doesn't pass WP:NCOLLATH, precedent is well-established that a college football player may have a stand-alone article if coverage passes WP:GNG. Frey was the starting quarterback at Ohio State from 1988 to 1990 and was the subject of widespread coverage in the mainstream media, more than sufficient to pass GNG. Examples include: this from Northwest Columbus News, this from ESPN.com. He also passes WP:NGRIDIRON as he played professional football in the original Arena Football League for the 1993 Cleveland Thunderbolts team. Cbl62 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is an easy keep !vote per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG (see Cbl62's comments above for a small sample of the coverage of the subject's college career). To anyone familiar with American college football, this result was entirely predictable, even without doing any AfD-related homework. The subject was the three-year starting quarterback for the Ohio State Buckeyes football team of Ohio State University, which has been a perennial top-10 program for the last 70 years. Starting quarterbacks in high-profile programs like Ohio State's get a lot of ink even if they suck, and this guy was a pretty damn fine college QB. Next. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Passes WP:Athlete as he played professionally int the Arena Football League.--Yankees10 18:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with all of the above arguments. One problem with Google searches is that they just don't go back very far. I did a search on HighBeam and hundreds of articles about him or mention him come up. I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimír Moravčík[edit]

Vladimír Moravčík (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)

After cleaning up the article I realized that there is no documented evidence to show he meets WP:KICK. In addition, the sources are just fight results.Mdtemp (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete He seems to have a pretty impressive fight record, but nothing that appears to meet WP:KICK. The lack of significant independent coverage means he also doesn't meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:15, 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 16:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EFC Africa[edit]

EFC Africa (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 deleted in late March as well as being deleted earlier at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Fighting Championship Africa. All of the sources data back to 2011 or 2012 so there's nothing new to show notability. The only exception is a press release from Fight Network, but that is certainly not independent.Mdtemp (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Briantw's comment of 2011: While each individual event doesn't carry the weight of significance, EFC Africa is holding its 11th event on 2011-11-10. This series of events is the largest in South Africa, and has grown to live coverage in a national cinema chain as well as two satellite television channels in the region. Now the largest in Africa. In both previous Afds the balamce was close on the company. --Bejnar (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that there's no independent evidence to show it's any more notable than it was at the last deletion discussion.Mdtemp (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Weak delete I don't think there's enough significant coverage to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Unless some new additional sources are provided, there's nothing that indicates this promotion has gained notability since the previous two times it was deleted. Papaursa (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• [4][5][6][7] are any of these credible? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed. They're not new sources or significant. I can't access the first source given, the second is a promotional release from EFC Africa in 2012 saying that ratings had doubled since 2011 (and this source was given in the previous discussion), the third is a one line mention in an article about cashing in on MMA in Canada where EFC is clearly described as minor "nth-tier fighting cards from promotions including Battlefield Fight League and Extreme Fighting Championship Africa", while the fourth is a 2011 article about a fighter who fights (or fought) for the EFC and the promotion gets a passing mention. None of these is post the last AfD and the most recent is the 2013 business article describing the EFC as n-th tier. It hardly makes a strong case for notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Still not enough to show it's a notable MMA organization.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable bush leauge promotion.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:23, 1 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 16:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosario Presti[edit]

Rosario Presti (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 kickboxer. No evidence to show he meets WP:KICK.Mdtemp (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:KICK. All three sources in the article appear to be just routine results reporting, although I couldn't access the 2 Russian ones and am basing my comments on the article titles. Papaursa (talk) 23:23, 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 16:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hersh Davis-Nitzberg[edit]

Hersh Davis-Nitzberg (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)

Wildly promotional article about a non-notable person, peppered with malformed references (and some places that look like references were added, but none are linked) to websites and articles that have little or nothing to do with the subject and do not indicate any notability. Considering Davis-Nitzberg is in the reputation management business, creating a bogus article on Wikipedia seems an especially bad idea. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article claims he founded a company that "dominated Southern Californian nightlife" for 11 years, and also claims that he is a "publicist". I was unable to find any coverage in independent, reliable sources describing any such dominance, or the other claims of influence, or anything else either. All I found was the usual array of social media sites, which do not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with User:Cullen328. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Cullen328, no significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. The previous Afd ended early with a speedy delete as blatant promotion (G-11). --Bejnar (talk) 05:05, 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 16:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drchrono[edit]

Drchrono (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 recognize that this meets the GNG, but it is nonetheless an insignificant company--its total revenue for 2013 is $2.8 million. The GNG does not force us to have an article in fields where there is an exceptional amount of hype. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Could use a rewrite, but there is sufficient coverage from major Reliable Sources. Even the nominator concedes that the subject meets GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep As MelanieN points out, the nominator concedes WP:GNG. I think there have to he very compelling reasons to nevertheless delete an article that meets WP:GNG. Automated health data recording on personalized devices are where the technology is headed. So, I see no reason to entertain deletion. I am One of Many (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This badly needs a rewrite, but there looks to be enough sources in the article itself to meet WP:GNG. I think a bit of POV needs to be removed and fleshing out needs to happen, but I can see this as meeting our inclusion criteria. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment' WP:N is very clear that meeting the GNG does not mean that there must be an article. We have the right to judge to what extent the notability corresponds to somethign realistic for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Singh (Shoethrower)[edit]

Vikram Singh (Shoethrower) (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 person who is known for throwing there shoe. Umm yeah. Wgolf (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classic WP:BLP1E. Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• -Also if we let one person like this slide-then we might as well have every single person who has said boo during any political event. Which um yeah that would be way too many pages. Wgolf (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E - If I threw my shoe at someone would I get an article? .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:BLP1E. EricSerge (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:BLP1E. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No Delete: Prakash Singh Badal is Chief Minister of Punjab (not some tea maker in streets). Vikram Singh, who has thrown shoe on him on an event due to unemployment prevailing in Punjab is critical issue. Moreover, many charges were thrown on him which are wrongly charged by Punjab Police which lead to intervention of Human Rights. It is similar to Jarnail Singh (politician), Muntadhar al-Zaidi. But, if wiki have policy of only creating articles for Shoe throwers on American Politicians then you may proceed with deletion (i don't know this rule). The person who is saying above that this is BOO, then could you please provide stats of country where shoe throwing on politicians is very common and is part of culture and occur the second day? Moreover this incident, includes multiple events, shoe throwing, Aam Aadmi Party Involvement, Human Rights violation etc and even got support from Punjabis abroad. Rather then marking for deletion first it should be ask for expansion or merger? Rest wikipedia is yours :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karantsingh (talk • contribs) 05:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Davey-For an instance, If you throw shoe on Obama. You are caught by police and put into false charges. You belong to some anti Obama Group. Also People fed up of Obama come in your support. Then I think you are notable man. Please do not throw show on Obama for coming on to wikipedia ;)
• Delete - what this protester did was sort of run of the mill in southwest Asia. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 07:16, 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 delete. j⚛e decker^talk 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bali songwriting Invitational[edit]

Bali songwriting Invitational (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 page was copied out of AfC by an editor who appears to be connected with one of the organizers. The references provided are all promotional artist bios, announcements, or web sites of the organizing groups. I looked on the web for better references, including a check under "Bali Songwriting Summit", and didn't find anything. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No independent sources, all hype. No significant independent sources. Fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. A gathering of notable artists does not create notability, comments and discussion in reliable sources does. --Bejnar (talk) 03:03, 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 Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHEF (disambiguation)[edit]

WHEF (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)

Seems like a miss use of a Disam page as just one abbreviation seems to fit and that is it. Wgolf (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• -Withdrawn-thanks to Boleyn for finding other uses, not a misuse anymore. Wgolf (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that was a quick reaction! Thanks, Wgolf, Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Das chess[edit]

Das chess (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 sign of WP:NOTABILITY. Just another chess variant among thousands, and a new one at that, this is currently sourced to the article proposing it at proza.ru, which is an anyone-can-publish platform. External links are all to anyone-can-publish or user-edited sites. Google finds just 5 hits with the name of the game and the last name of the creator, including this page. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to show this has the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All I can find about this are the self-published page on proza.ru, a similarly unsourced article on the Esperanto Wikipedia, and an article on what appears to be a fork of the Russian Wikipedia [8] though not on the actual Russian WP. Not even on chessvariants.org. — Gwalla | Talk 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., no significant independent coverage, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 03:09, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask culture vs. guess culture[edit]

Ask culture vs. guess culture (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 well established as a concept in sociology or anthropology to be included in an encyclopedia. Gccwang (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - like subconscious, we have tended to keep lots of popular culture topics that have articles, even if the subject might not be recognized, or may even be a fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I certainly wasn't expecting to vote this way, but the sources look legit. I agree with Bearian. We don't really have much choice in the matter. Fringe nonsense, pop psychology, and web wisdom are all quite acceptable, as long as they're sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not convinced by the references in the article. The Eichler and Drum sources are explicitly derivative of the Burkeman column in The Guardian so shouldn't be considered separate sources, so we are left with one personal column, not an editorially fact-checked article, in a newspaper. Unless we can can come up with some better sourcing than this I don't see how we can sustain an encyclopedia article on this topic. To compare this to the ultra-notable "subconscious" is simply ridiculous. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 18:58, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at the sources, this is minor. We'd want considerably more than the Guardian for any article in science or social science--their judgement in these areas is unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG. I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pah Tum[edit]

Pah Tum (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 has been tagged as a hoax for some time. An editor has noted on the talk page that it isn't mentioned in any of the many board game-related reference books he has checked. It may actually exist, [9] but even if it does it doesn't appear to be notable given the dearth of coverage in RSs. Fails WP:GNG (as well as WP:OR and WP:V). Jinkinson talk to me 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete for lack of coverage. The game is claimed as an ancient game, one of the referenced sites indicates that a board was found in the XII Dynasty tomb of Reny-Seneb. But Llagostera, Esteban (2011). "El ocio en la antigüedad. Juegos del Mundo". Espacio Tiempo y Forma. Serie II, Historia Antigua (in Spanish). 1 (24): 305–329. makes it clear that the game found there bears no relation to "Pah tum", and that the archaeologists are completely ignorant of the rules of the Reny-Seneb game. This is confirmed in Chapter 2 of Tyldesley, Joyce A. (2007). Egyptian games and sports. Princes Risborough, UK: Shire. ISBN 978-0-7478-0661-5. where the Reny-Seneb game is referred to as "hounds and jackals". The claim of Mesopotamian and Assyrian Pah Tum boards could not be verified. It seems much more likely that the rules are of an entirely modern origin. --Bejnar (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax. The ancient history has been trimmed from the article since its creation, but is particularly telling. Any board game from antiquity, especially one whose rules were known, especially one whose rules involve otherwise modern concepts like random space selection, would be a fruitful topic in scholarly analysis. But, predictably, Google Scholar is silent on the topic of "Pah Tum". Nor are there Google Books hits; even if this was a well-circulated game of more modern origin (with merely claimed ancient origins), it would appear in any of the litany of books about board games and abstract gaming, or in computer science game theory sources. But it is in none of those. Indeed, its only web presence appears to be a flurry of entries in open-submission board gaming sites (none of which constitute reliable sources), circa 2007–2008, and this 2008 entry at Wikipedia. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor of Pah Tum, Aamma58, has contributed a vast array of essentially or completely unsourced articles on abstract board games. I am struggling to find reliable sources, even trivial ones, for nearly all of them. More eyes would be appreciated. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Dialing this back, somewhat. There are a TON of really poorly sourced articles here, in something of a walled garden, but at least enough of them seem to be verifiable that I don't think it's appropriate for me to pull the Official Wikipedia Fire Alarm. My opinion on this article, however, stands unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karam Family[edit]

Karam Family (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)

List of potential family members which consists of mostly redlinks and no sources. I searched on a couple names and couldn't find anything to indicate notability. Article was de-prodded over a year ago by creator but no improvements have taken place. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. It may have been dePRODed which means AfD would be the next step, but that doesn't make it immune from A7 for making absolutely no claims to notability. It would be an insult to regular Wikipedians to expect them to find sources for this family vanity page. Some of the people in the family have Wikipedia pages but that still doesn't even make this page useful as a list article. That said, it may be worthwhile checking on the notability of those other pages too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does A7 apply to families? The guideline doesn't say so explicitly. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. CSD criteria have generally been narrowly construed. A family is not a real-world person nor an organization, so does not strictly qualify for A7. But the fact that this article makes no assertion of notability or importance whatsoever is still a valid reason for deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless someone can come up with documentation. They could be the Lebanese Kennedys or Bushes, but I Googled "karim family" "youssef bey" and got no results. I'd definitely expect that if there were discussions of this family in English, there'd be pages online with that phrase and that person's name on them. There could be apt sources in Arabic, but I have no way to identify them and, unless someone supplies them, I'd rather not have this indiscriminate list of mostly red links with no introductory text explaining the significance of the family as a unit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments. The family may well include notable individuals, but that does not in of itself make the family as a whole notable - something that needs to be demonstrated through third-party reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe redirect to Karam. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a bad idea. Even Karam#Persons. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While I agree with much of what has been said above, I think one common sense point must be made: when all of the red links are removed from this article, it won't be much of a list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Dirtlawyer's reasoning. There is no coherent topic here to justify an article or list. I still think A7 would have applied. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic fails to meet any of our notability guidelines due to insufficient coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dirtlawyer1 and fails to meet notability guidelines.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete This is a tough one. I think many of the people listed may be notable and also the family. When I search on the arabic names, a lot of sources that look reliable in arabic pop up, but I don't know arabic and I just don't know much about Lebanon. I think we lack editors from that part of the world, so for now, we should probably delete it. I am One of Many (talk) 06:46, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 16:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Rich, Jr.[edit]

Charlie Rich, Jr. (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 very faint passing mentions found; seems to fail WP:NMUSIC. Supposedly toured nationally but sources are very scant. Concerns that this may not be prod-worthy led to me withdrawing the prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - thank you, TenPoundHammer, although I'd mixed him up with another singer. In any case, there is some evidence that this artist has toured nationally, mostly at state fairs - Missouri state fair, Utah state fair, Lakeside and Wild Rose casinos in Iowa, and the Wisconsin state fair. Oddly, I don't see any in-depth reviews online, but rather lots of short mentions. For widespread but not much significant coverage, I'd say he's barely notable. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:MUSIC#4 is about a concert tour, not about driving yourself around a country and playing at small fairs. It also requires nontrivial coverage. Neither is satisfied here. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTEBLP and WP:MUSIC for lack of significant coverage, also per duffbeerforme.  --Bejnar (talk) 05:04, 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 delete. j⚛e decker^talk 16:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Sixsmith[edit]

Nigel Sixsmith (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)

Unable to find significant coverage independent of the subject of this BLP, do not believe the page meets GNG nor do I believe it meets the criteria of MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 12:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree and would suggest the closely-related The Art of Sound is equally worthy of deletion. Nedrutland (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No references at present, and though I tried several web searches I found no independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Qwfp (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - Fails GNG.–Davey2010 • (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sounds like a nice guy, but fails to have any real coverage. Fails WP:NOTEBLP and WP:MUSIC for lack of coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:07, 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) --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mami Matsuyama[edit]

Mami Matsuyama (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 person known for dressing up as a VG character? Um not sure how that is notable. Plus the "source" goes to bing oddly. Wgolf (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Japanese Wikipedia article may say more things about her. As for the link that redirects to Bing, it's an expired Mainichi Shimbun link. I tried to look at the Wayback Machine but it said explicitly that the link was excluded from it :( WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• -Thanks, yeah can't find that much on her though. At first I thought it meant the character was modeled after her and I was thinking oh that's cool then I realized I read it wrong and was going yeah might as well as have everyone at comic con now or something! Wgolf (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to see what I can find with "松山 まみ" - The Google hits suggest that she's some kind of model or swimsuit model, but I need to get those precious "reliable sources" WhisperToMe (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Well at least I did manage to find this or else it might of sat around even longer without anyone knowing! Wgolf (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm not sure if it counts but I found a DVD on Kinokuniya Ｐｕｒｅ　Ｓｍｉｌｅ　松山まみ WhisperToMe (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Books shows several books about her, but I don't know much about who publishes them. They may be erotic photograph books, but Google Books lists them. I'll enlist help with the Japan Wikiproject.

• まみラシク歩イテク。: 松山まみ1st写真集. 竹書房, Nov 29, 2003.
• 告白伝えたい思い: 松山まみ2nd写真集. 竹書房, Mar 10, 2005.
• 旅立ち雪が消えぬまに: 松山まみ写真集. ワニブックス, May 10, 2006.
• 松山まみ「恋のはじまり」. ラインコミュニケーションズ CapturedBooks.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• *Keep Delete Fails biographic notability. Appearing in a swimsuit on a DVD or in a magazine is not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Based on new sources.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears that Matsuyama was not just a model for erotic photo books and DVDs, but for a time an actress with some press coverage. Her biggest role was in the TV show Chousei Kantai Sazer-X and its movie version, Chousei Kantai Sazer-X the Movie: Fight! Star Warriors, but she also had a regular role in Gal Circle. As a result of all this, for a time she did have coverage in the major sports papers and tabloids: for example, SpoNichi, Sports Hochi, Nikkan Spa, and the regional paper Mutsu Shinpo. She also had articles on other major entertainment sites like Oricon Style, and Zakzak [10] [11]. This is coverage that is on par with a gravure idol just achieving fame. The problem is that she disappeared after 2007, and apart from occasional blog posts wondering what happened to her, there is no real coverage after that. Michitaro (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on new information - Archived Mutsu Shimpo - Yomiuri Archived - Also: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." and "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." WhisperToMe (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure that Japanese "sports" newspapers, which seem to largely feature young female swimmers (!) are a reliable source. As for the entertainment notability claim, if you are referring to the TV shows Michitaro mentions above, Gal Circle is tagged for notability while both Chousei Kantai Sazer-X and Chousei Kantai Sazer-X the Movie: Fight! Star Warriors are unreferenced, indicating that they too have inclusion issues.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Seriously, the sports papers in Japan are not "largely" featuring "young female swimmers." They are daily national papers focusing on sports and published by the major national dailies (Sponichi/Sports Nippon is a subsidiary of the Mainichi Shinbun and Sports Hochi is a division of the Yomiuri Shinbun, Japan's largest paper). They also publish regular and entertainment news and are used as reliable sources throughout Wikipedia (I have also used them on many AfDs). As for the TV shows and film, I have added some sources--all easily pass notability requirements. I am still undecided, however, whether this is sufficient to make Matsuyama notable. Michitaro (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: If the shows are notable, then she is covered by Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." as long as she has significant roles in at least two of them. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She meets WP:BASIC ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) and WP:ENTERTAINER criterion #1. 122.17.193.9 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe the material provided by 122.17.193.9, in addition to what I found, is sufficient to pass WP:GNG criteria. Michitaro (talk) 16:30, 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! 16:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratko Zjaca[edit]

Ratko Zjaca (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 to have a stand-alone article in WP. If the name is a search tool then could be redirected to a band he worked in. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG and I can see no suitable redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep based on a review at [19], a short review at [20], and a short review at [21]. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on minimalist coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:23, 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. Kudos to James500 for his excellent work on the restructured article.  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 Stone Buildings[edit]

5 Stone Buildings (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 set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the members may be notable but I doubt the chambers themselves are. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • NOTINHERITED is only an essay, and I doubt that its logic can be applied here. Places (and this is a building) typically acquire notability for their inhabitants and the events that happen there. James500 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Serious consideration should be given to the possibility of merging this article and 11 Stone Buildings into a single article at Stone Buildings, dealing with the entire street, which is likely to be notable. James500 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I think Stone Buildings probably has a chapter in this. They were constructed in 1774 by Sir Robert Taylor. When one feeds that into GBooks one gets quite a few results quickly including things like this. Palladian design is highly regarded. Pitt the Younger had chambers there. Appears as a setting in a novel by Anthony Trollope. And so forth. I think Stone Buildings is notable and the merger, redirect and rewrite I proposed should go ahead. James500 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Move to Stone Buildings and make it about the building as a whole? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is essentially what I am proposing. The same sort of job I did at Paper Buildings and Pump Court. James500 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am iminently about to perform this rewrite. I don't know if I'll finish it in a day. James500 (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure we can wait a few days to see the outcome. Philafrenzy (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The article requires and will receive further expansion but should be immune from deletion in its present form. James500 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC) @ User:Philafrenzy: Is the article acceptable now? James500 (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As regards, no. 5 itself, it seems that the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Solicitor to the Treasury were there. Quite a few sources mention this. This is official. The editorial office of The Law Times (236 vols from 1843 to 1965 when it merged into the New Law Journal) was there: [22] [23]. The Office of the General Council of the Bar might also have been there. James500 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. Problems fixed. Stone Buildings obviously satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am changing my vote to keep. Thanks to James500's excellent work the current article is clearly notable. With a few possible exceptions, most of the sets will not be individually notable so this is the right way to handle them in my view. I think the info boxes could also be removed. I haven't checked but if there are more then they could get the same sort of amalgamation. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Dawn Records[edit]

Tokyo Dawn Records (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 label associated with non-notable artists. Λeternus ^(talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article has been on wikipedia for almost 10 yrs. Numerous artists with Wikipedia pages (thus notable?) have links to the record label article. See links above (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Tokyo_Dawn_Records&limit=999) . —Gaff ^ταλκ
  • Article's lifespan on Wikipedia is irrelevant in establishing its subject's notability. Also, notability is not inherited, which means the subject needs to be independently covered by multiple reliable sources. --Λeternus ^(talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, Lifespan on WP does not = notable, but it the number of notable artists with WP articles that link to this page (because it is their record label) does account for something. As for the sholar articles mentioned below: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Tokyo+Dawn+Records%22 (This is also avilable above this discussion on the "find sources" section. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Several mentions on Google Scholar, appears to be a well established and respected netlabel. MEP MEP1697 (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide some links to these Google Scholar mentions? (Also keep in mind that trivial mentioning is not sufficient in establishing notability.) --Λeternus ^(talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mason (singer)[edit]

Matt Mason (singer) (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)

Last AFD closed as "no consensus". Rationale same as last time: Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. All coverage comes from the time that he won CMT's Next Superstar, with no subsequent coverage whatsoever. This seems to be a case similar to Angela Hacker, who won a season of Nashville Star but received no coverage after the fact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – In my view, the "keep" consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Mason (singer) was not at all unreasonable. There's coverage of him beyond just news of his Next Superstar win, for example in the Dayton Daily News I found there is coverage from 2012, and also a bit of coverage of him touring in 2013 (Don Thrasher. "The Top", Dayton Daily News 26 July 2013: p. AC.3.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rickard William Lloyd[edit]

Rickard William Lloyd (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 not sure meets criteria for WP:GNG. If he wrote two books that are un-noteworthy, does that warrant a need for an encyclopedia article? Otherwise, the article is an obituary, already publised elsewhere, 80 yrs ago. —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An entry in Who's Who indicates notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MJT21 (talk • contribs) 6 September 2014

• • Sorry, but how so? Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Notes point # 5, a Who's Who entry does not prove notability —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That note refers to Marquis Who's Who, an entirely different publication from Who's Who (UK) (and Who Was Who), which doesn't accept self-nominations. Qwfp (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So do all 33,000 Britons listed listed in Who's Who (UK) have/need WP articles? I'm not arguing, just asking the question... —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Clearly they don't all have WP articles at present, and I don't believe WP's coverage of UK people in any sense needs all of them to have WP articles. Nor do I believe having an entry in Who's Who should be sufficient to survive AfD. But I think it's an indicator of notability that can contribute, along with others. Qwfp (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We have always accepted, for example that an obit in the NYT is conclusive proof of notability. A & C Black's Who's Who belongs in the same category. It is very unlikely that the professional biographers of that publication would make a mistake about who is and isn't notable. James500 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BMJ and Who Was Who are both independent, reliable sources, so meets WP:GNG. (I notice the nominator also added a tag to the page about possible WP:Conflict of interest, but the origin of this concern is not obvious to me.) Qwfp (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag deleted. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 10:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rickard William Lloyd was a pioneering anaesthetist before it became the relatively 'unexceptional' role it is perceived as today MJT21 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. To use MJT21's word - unexceptional. Delete Bristolbottom (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. User:Bristolbottom seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.41 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I'm not against using Who's Who to bolster notability, but it's not sufficient. I found his obit in BMJ, plus three articles (one of which is listed on the article but only by the title -- tsk tsk):

Dr. Rickard William Lloyd (this would be the obit) The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3777 (May 27, 1933), p. 940

The Field Of View Of The Anaesthetist Rickard W. Lloyd The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2198 (Feb. 14, 1903), pp. 401-402

Slow Heart Rickard W. Lloyd The British Medical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3357 (May 2, 1925), p. 860

Fatal Collapse After Extirpation Of Kidney Rickard W. Lloyd The British Medical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2642 (Aug. 19, 1911), pp. 409-410

The obit should yield some good information, but I do not have access to JSTOR, so I put these out there and hope that someone with better access can get to it and add to the article. Other than that, I found nothing other than the metadata for his book, but I can't find a digital copy (hoping for a nice intro with bio information). LaMona (talk) 22:55, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Of note is that the second !vote suggests topic notability, but doesn't qualify it. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webix[edit]

Webix (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 believe Webix doesn't satisfy general notability guideline.

• Coverage in multiple independent sources is required; the only substantial articles are two on InfoQ [24] [25], but both are written by the same person, thus not independent. It's also not clear whether InfoQ falls under WP:SPS, see [26]
• Two cited sources [27] and [28] (now removed from article) I'd say are not substantial coverage. The 2nd is mostly a list of screenshots from the Webix website.

In addition, the article also has issues with tone and neutrality. -- intgr [talk] 17:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• GNG does not in absolute terms require multiple sources. James500 (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webix was also mentioned in this article http://t3n.de/news/webix-form-builder-formular-generator-562130/. It tells about a new form generator Form Builder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelluvuus (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep - Notability marginally established by [29] and [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 10:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep - I know that there's room for improvement here, primarily because familiar with it myself enough to know that there are possibilities for more sources. I think it's a bit of a poor article, but not deletion worthy. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Human.v2.0: If you know there are more sources, please list them or add them to the article for future editors to build upon. -- intgr [talk] 07:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 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). The source from The Daily Star is reliable, but it's debatable whether this is over the threshold of providing enough coverage to qualify as significant. I feel that this source falls short of providing significant coverage about the album. I'm unable to access the second source from ebanglamusic.org at this time. closing as no consensus due to 1) a lack of participation after two relistings and 2) a lack of discussion about the sources provided. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doob (album)[edit]

Doob (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)

A solo album which has no notability at all. Wgolf (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:GNG, [31], [32]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Kmzayeem. – nafSadh did say 02:20, 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 06:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EUROMICRO[edit]

EUROMICRO (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)

AfD was closed because in 2 weeks as no consensus it had attracted only one comment. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been nominated for deletion twice before (speedy and prod) by two different editors, but considered not to meet that criteria/possibly be notable. It has been tagged for notability for over six years without resolution. It would be good if this time there were more responses or it is relisted enough times to get a response - as this has been tagged for notability for more than 6 years, it is time it was resolved. Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable. A publication of Euromicro, the Journal of Systems Architecture, has an ISI impact factor and therefore satisfies criteria 1 of WP:NJournals. I also found this. Its other publications also seem to be widely cited. The lack of response to the last AfD may indicate a "silent consensus" that Euromicro is notable. James500 (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with nom. A journal is affiliated to Euromicro, so what? NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not just any journal, it is a notable journal. James500 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete—This is a significant organization, but I don't see a path to establishing that it's a notable one. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• If the journal is notable (and, unless I am mistaken, WP:NJournals seems to say that this one is) the organisation that produced it is automatically notable. We have always accepted that people can inherit notability from their publications. Putting the journal and the organisation that produced it into one article is how we normally handle borderline cases. Or at least it was in April of last year when I last discussed this. James500 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi James500. I see you created Wikipedia:Notability (publishing). Can you give me a pointer to where this was discussed? Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is just an essay that expresses what I think is an obvious application of GNG and LISTN. But IIRC, North Louisiana Historical Association was kept at AfD largely on the strength of NJournals. James500 (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Strike that, looking back at the AfD, it was an argument advanced by a number of veteran editors. James500 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Update: The essay is now a draft proposal. James500 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Publication through Elsevier and IEEE argue strongly for both standards of WP:NONPROFIT.
  SBaker43 (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree SBaker43's argument. A journal of the organization is in sciencedirect [33]. They hold international conferences and the proceedings are cited in many independent sources. Definitely meets the two criteria in WP:NONPROFIT. I am One of Many (talk) 07:03, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 16:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Julian[edit]

Brenda Julian (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)

An article I'm surprised was never marked for nobility before. This actress as only been in minor roles. Granted the shows are notable, but not her. And she has done nothing since this article started either. Wgolf (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Too many images, too many results, though whether they are reliable or not is questionable. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "Too many images, too many results" isn't a valid reason to keep!, Anyway I can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NOTEBLP, fails WP:ENT. --Bejnar (talk) 04:32, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 16:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phuntroo[edit]

Phuntroo (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)

filming has not yet begun, it is too soon for an article BOVINEBOY2008 11:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete WP:NFF Gaijin42 (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

and WP:INDAFD: Sujay Dahake

• Delete per failing WP:NFF (paragraph 3) and being TOOSOON. It might be mentioned and sourced in the director article at Sujay Dahake.[34] Advise author to study MOS:FILM to learn article format, and WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NF to understand sourcing requirements. Allow recreation in proper format only after filming has been confirmed and only if the production gets coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:37, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Stefanakos[edit]

Dimitrios Stefanakos (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)

Doesen't appear notable. The Lightning Strikes! ^{Try me!} 11:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - player played at the highest level of domestic football in his country and multiple times for his country in international competition, clearly a notable player -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as a Greek international, he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He has seven international caps for his country at senior level, therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 21:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment some votes suggest that the article should be kept because you like it. That doesen't work. No conclusions yet.The Lightning Strikes! ^{Try me!} 22:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they're actually saying it should be kept because he passes notability guidelines! It does in fact appear to be you who is saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since you have provided no valid reason for deletion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep - The Tharros article is significant coverage in a reliable source and as a Greek international player he easily satisfies NFOOTBALL. Nominator should have done a GNG check (or looked at the Tharros article though a web translation tool) before nominating a few-day-old article that clearly passes a SNG. Jogurney (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played for Greece.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY due to international appearances. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article clearly states he had a few starts for Greek national team. Why then does User:Lightning BOLT! claim he isn't notable? Is the article wrong? Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 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 Keep(non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuous (2014 film)[edit]

Virtuous (2014 film) (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 film, notability is not inherited from those involved in the film BOVINEBOY2008 11:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the following sources:

• Erik Estrada coming to Middle Georgia churches in The Telegraph (Macon, Georgia)
• Faith Lutheran to screen film with Erik Estrada in Highlands Today (edition of The Tampa Tribune)
• Christian movie showing to draw Jessica Lynch, Erik Estrada in Highlands Today
• Erik Estrada’s next faith-based movie to shoot in Rock Hill in Rock Hill Herald (Rock Hill, South Carolina)
• Virtuous film premieres at Sunset Theatre in The Courier-Tribune (Asheboro, North Carolina)
• North Etowah hosts 'Virtuous' film in The Daily Post-Athenian (Athens, Tennessee)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per research by Erik. IE: WP:NRVE. While the nominator is correct in that notability is usually not "inherited" BUT, if such involvement brings the film significant coverage, the notability is established. Point here being Bovineboy, that no one is asserting the project is notable simply because of those involved, but rather is notable through the resulting coverage. The participants become secondary considerations to the coverage itself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the case that the article was deproded for exactly that justification. However, I do appreciate all the research provided by Erik. I am happy to withdraw this nomination. BOVINEBOY2008 07:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, I found these sources by choosing "Past year" in Google's search tools when searching for keywords for the film. One can choose that or a date range to focus on a certain period during which a film may have been covered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• BIG thanks to Bovineboy for his withdrawal and to Erik for his diligent research. The 65 character (14 word) stub that was first nominated has gone through some easy changes to become so-far (with a 20x plus expansion) a 1786 character (295 word) C-class article to better serve the project. Anyone want to suggest a nice DYK?? . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. I de-prodded it, as I thought that a film with this cast would likely be notable. It might turn out to be this year's Heaven's Gate, but who knows? I thought Ride Along was going to bomb, and while it got only 18 % on Rotten Tomatoes, it made lots of cash. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good catch and thanks Bearian. This now qualifies for a polite and happy speedy keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:54, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works of fiction set in 2034[edit]

Works of fiction set in 2034 (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 know this is part of a series, so the same may apply to all (future) years in this series, I have only looked at this one. I have now nominated all future years in the same vein:

• Works of fiction set in 2015
• Works of fiction set in 2016
• Works of fiction set in 2017
• Works of fiction set in 2018
• Works of fiction set in 2019
• Works of fiction set in 2020
• Works of fiction set in 2021
• Works of fiction set in 2022
• Works of fiction set in 2023
• Works of fiction set in 2024
• Works of fiction set in 2025
• Works of fiction set in 2026
• Works of fiction set in 2027
• Works of fiction set in 2028
• Works of fiction set in 2029
• Works of fiction set in 2030
• Works of fiction set in 2031
• Works of fiction set in 2032
• Works of fiction set in 2033
• Works of fiction set in 2035
• Works of fiction set in 2061

There is no link between these works of fiction, the year 2034 is a random "near future" year which could have been 2035 or 2036 without any change to the works. The year 2034 is not a defining characteristic. "Works set in an alternate Earth where Hitler won WWII" would be a list of works with a clear, important (plot-defining) characteristic linking them. But being placed in the same future year? Or worse, looking at Works of fiction set in 2035, just having some plot element happening in that year? These are lists of basically unrelated trivia. Fram (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Also expand to whole series of these (from the makeshift navbox at top). We have categories "XXXX in fiction" that does this job just fine, as these lists are not providing any commentary about the year and just serve to list the works. --MASEM (t) 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll expand this nomination to include all future years (I can imagine that different arguments apply to fiction set in the past...). Fram (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this entire article scheme: the future articles named here, and the rest as found at Works of fiction by year (and that parent article). This is a trivial intersection better handled by categories (if at all), and which presents a litany of problems with inclusion and maintenance. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or merge back into year articles). It's clearly inappropriate as categories, per WP:CATDEF. I believe the claim that works of fiction are inappropriate in year articles was a very weak consensus, and might be revisited. (I must admit the same applies to "Category:Establishments in yyyy"....) I'm not going to emphasize WP:RETAIN, as I consider that a weak argument, but it is an argument. The decision of whether a work of fiction should be included needs more specific guidelines, but so do the criteria for factual events which appear in year articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, RETAIN is about keeping one variation of English (e.g. Australian English or British English) in an article. I don't see the relevance here. And whether the cats should exist or not is a separate discussion, keeping the lists or deleting should not be dependent on the existence or fate of the cats. Fram (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake, it was WP:PRESERVE. I should know better than to trust guidelines pointed to by the Kalamazoo Kid. It's still not a good argument, but it is an argument based on policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the info that X or Y is set in 2034 (or whatever year) is not lost, it is mentioned in the article about X or about Y. The bringing together of the information on one page is undone, but that is because it is not a notable combined topic. But no information is actually lost or removed from Wikipedia in this case. Fram (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the articles on their respective years. That is, have a 2028 in fiction section in the article 2028 and merge Works of fiction set in 2028 into [[2028]. Khemehekis (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Users can merge into years if they feel like it, but I don't consider it important. As the nominator has fairly pointed out, almost all future settings are vague and hypothetical, unlike historical settings. Theoretically, I'd consider keeping near-future categories in order to allow for works that posit specific counterfactuals (eg. "Three years into Mitt Romney's first term...") but it might be too hard to enforce and regardless, doesn't seem to be the case for any of the works currently on the lists for the next few years. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A bit too indiscriminate. Although somewhat better than "fictional works that feature a protagonist named Joe", these works are still very loosely connected to each other through what is not a defining feature of the work itself. An encyclopedic article could be written about near future settings, and I'm slightly surprised that we don't have one. Notable examples could be listed and discussed there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's too WP:SYNTHy and too WP:INUNIVERSEy. Bondegezou (talk) 10:42, 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. j⚛e decker^talk 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Felpi[edit]

Enrique Felpi (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 boxer - does not come close to meeting WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]