< 23 February	25 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Valor Victory Gaming[edit]

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

Many of the articles linked to are no longer valid, this page has only been updated several times in over a year and a half, visiting the website shows they only have one active team in the game Fifa. Team has only 1 Lan accomplishment in the last 2 years and several since 2012. All of the collaborations section links to articles that are not valid. AcePuppy (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to be enough third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG. It seems some of its members sometimes contribute to a "geek themed" blog, but that's them writing, not articles covering them, that doesn't help their case for notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this passes WP:GNG. Coverage in a blog by members is not WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How Dare You (Sistar song)[edit]

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

A few days ago, I boldly merged some song articles into So Cool (Sistar album). This one has been reverted twice so I'm taking it to AfD. A lot of editors are under the impression that charting is all it takes to make a song notable enough for its own article, but that is not what WP:NSONG says. Charting is only a suggestion that a song may be notable; it still must meet WP:GNG. This song article has no third-party reliable sources. Random86 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The merge was being kind; there is nothing really to even merge. (I saw the reverter's comments; strange he/she'd rather have it deleted than merged, but hey, whatever.) The article says nothing at all beyond some release dates and chart placements. Oh, and of course, the list of TV shows it was performed on, which is exactly the same for every kpop song. Song articles must talk about the song as an actual piece of music, or as something that has impacted society, or something, as per significant discussion in reliable, secondary sources independent of the artist. That's clearly not the case with this random Sistar song. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NSONG. No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence in WP:RS that this passes WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middleaged Mormon Man[edit]

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

Likely autobiographical article. Does not meet WP:NOTE. No usable sources aside from a passing mention in in Deseret News. Daniel (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now -- no mentions in Google news, a quick look at a Google search reveals quite a few results, however they're blogs and what I suspect are lesser-reliable news sources. —George8211 / T 23:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got a couple mentions in The Deseret News, but that's not really enough to write an entire article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Cannon[edit]

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

Appears to violate WP:NPERSON, WP:GNG. He's cited as a rep, but not as an individual. Citations go to extremely generic info pages, two on his own company's webpage. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What I saw wasn't an encyclopedia article, it was a press release. That would be fixable with some good sources and a neutral editor, but I could find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All I found were press releases, and business directory profiles which also represent the totality of sourcing in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Demographics[edit]

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

I don't think this can be fixed. The table is presented without any kind of context (Are we counting the countries' populations or are we counting the number of people in that ethnic group? Are we counting the whole diaspora or just the part of the diaspora which lives in the Balkans?), it's sourced to another Wikipedia article that never mentions demographics and its data is quite obviously wrong (particularly striking are the fourth, fifth and sixth column). Might as well restart from scratch than keep this with warning tags. Pichpich (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't tell if the final two columns are just an honest mistake, or a hoax/joke.--KTo288 (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beats me what the purpose of this article is. The Banner talk 22:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anyone see the point to this "article"?.... Na neither do I!, Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 03:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kalkini Syed Abul Hossain University College[edit]

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

Withdrawn, all those user vote for keeping, but no one contribute to improve the unreferenced articles.~~Possible COI, as the founder of the institution created the article. As well as unreferenced.~~ Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it is a real educational institute and actually affiliated with NU then according to Wikipedia community norm, this article should exist. Read: Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Notability (note that, it is however a guide not a rule or policy), – nafSadh did say 23:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-level university college per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 03:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The fact that there may be a COI is not necessarily a reason for deletion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)--Antigng (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abul Hossain[edit]

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

Possible autobiography as Hossaine contribute significantly in this article as well as related articles only. All the images are also uploaded by this user. Single reference is manipulative due to his interest in this particular newspaper. Fail to pass notability of living people. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable enough. He was one of the most controversial persons in Bangladesh during his term as communication minister. Although the article needs thorough editing and reliable source for verification. I have done some copy editing. Needs more. - Rahat (Message) 04:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite obviously qualifies for an article per WP:POLITICIAN as both a member of a national legislature and a minister. The quality of the article is irrelevant - this is AfD to determine whether the subject is notable and he clearly is. Stupid nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a a member of a national legislature. Enos733 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No indication that this article passes the requirements at WP:GNG has been presented by those asking for the article's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keishinkan[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art. No indication of notability and no independent coverage at all.Mdtemp (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletea non notable martial arts with no third person sources. I totally agree with the nominator. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep by WP:GNG.24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne North[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer whose article makes no substantive claim of notability that would pass WP:AUTHOR — as written, it just asserts her existence, and references it to primary sources like her own website and her promotional profile on GoodReads. The only source here that even approaches reliability is #8 (an interview on CBC Radio One's local station in Saskatchewan), but it's a longstanding principle of AFD that since it still involves the subject speaking about herself, an interview does not demonstrate notability in and of itself. And further, that interview is being cited solely to support the title of one of her books — so it's still just serving to demonstrate that she exists, rather than showing that she's accomplished any of the specific achievements that it takes to get a writer into Wikipedia. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and notability claim can be beefed up — but in its current form this is actually teetering on the edge of a promotional WP:NOTADVERT violation. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her latest, Flying Time, does appear to have some RS reviews: National Post and Winnipeg Review. The latter describes her as "known for her Phoebe Fairfax mystery series [Healthy, Wealthy & Dead (1994), Seeing is Believing (1996), and Bones to Pick (2002)", so there may be older coverage offline. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC) I've added some references and cleaned up the promotional material. See what you/anybody else thinks. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentThere are many reviews of her works (references are included, but are not available online, only through proquest or Canadian Newsstand), a few critical books/articles (one from Wilfred Laurier University Press) that highlight the author's significance as Canadian author. do not delete but encourage people to add to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.246.79 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources after my above comment. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references mentioned above show notability per WP:GNG. There's also a bio of her in Saskatchewan Writers: Lives Past and Present. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 05:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Thanks for the save, guys. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Society for Experimental Biology. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Physiology[edit]

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

Article dePRODded by IP without reason stated. PROD reason still stands: " Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Society for Experimental Biology, which presently only mentions the journal. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, without prejudice against re-establishing a separate article if the journal succeeds. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NJRS[edit]

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

Largely original research, whole section on things like the logo EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-also has had the speedy tag removed multiple times. I am going for speedy delete. Wgolf (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I didn't create this article but have cleaned up some of the more significant formatting and style issues. While I don't know a lot about the topic, it appears to be a project of a Government department of India and a quick Google gives some media coverage. -- Chuq (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-If we do some online search, we found out that this project was rolled out last year. This is a project granted by Income-tax Department, Government of India. Indeed this is an eligible page for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshalth (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Found one relevant and important document: http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Lists/Departmental%20News/Attachments/7/Departmental_News.pdf — Preceding comment added by Anshalth (talk • — Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Appears to be a notable thing. Contents can be discussed on article's talk page. Sources, -[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment was mistakenly left at WP:REFUND instead of here:

This is a prestigious project by Income Tax Department of India and is in the interest of the nation as it will save lot of exchequers cost in buying un-necessary databases from private service providers which the ITO's refer from time to time.

It is a strong and a brave project and hence this page should not be deleted. Vidyutmshah

--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge into Income Tax Department, which at present is fairly short, with this subject needing a paragraph at most. Nobody is going to search by this acronym (whose first Google hit is the Wikipedia article) anyway. Pax 07:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is found to not be compliant with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dellen Millard[edit]

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

The entry is not about Tim Bosma but it is about Dellen Millard. It contains serious unproven criminal accusations concerning the murders of three persons. If and when Mr Millard is found guilty of the crimes in which he has been charged, his biography should be considered for restoration. Until then, the publication of these charges might be considered prejudicial, possibly libelous, may be considered contempt of court and may be found to be contrary to Mr Millard's right to innocence before the law until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Frankie Z (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD; this is the best I can come up with for a rationale that the user gave (if I read it correctly, BLP issues). ansh 666 01:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the reasons for deletion fit any criteria we have. Nothing I read in the article is libelous -- he's been charged with murder and that's what the article states. As for the right to innocence, this does not apply as no judgment has been made in the article. Nothing is written here that would not be published in a newspaper. As for "contempt of court" -- seriously? How so? Has anyone involved in writing the article been called as witnesses? The only criteria we are concerned with is notability and this article may not meet notability requirements per WP:NOTNEWS or something similar. If Millard's only notability is being charged with murder, then he may not be notable and this article could be redirected to any article dealing with the murder. freshacconci talk to me 20:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for criminals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:PERP specifies that we have a rule about not creating permanent encyclopedia articles about people whose main claim of notability is having been charged with, but not yet convicted of, a crime. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a conviction actually takes place, but in the meantime it's not appropriate and actually has the potential to become the cause of a mistrial. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article goes against WP:PERP and WP:BLPCRIME. A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. The alleged crimes may be notable when they are proven in a court of law, not before. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Past, The Present, The Future.[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY issues. smileguy91^talk 16:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Album by notable group with confirmed tracklisting and release date only 5 weeks away, that has already received coverage in the hours since it was announced. The fact that the album's impending release has been covered by major sources outside the group's home country should be an indication that further coverage will follow closer to release. Deleting now would be pointless. Coverage will almost certainly appear over the coming weeks. If we get to mid-April and we don't have sufficient sources (which seems very unlikely) we can consider it again. Bringing it to AfD only 4 minutes after it was created with no apparent discussion seems quite unconstructiue. --Michig (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to at least meet the basic requirements of WP:NALBUM (which is low bar to begin with). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An argument could be made that available sourcing already demonstrates notability, but to Michig's point, why bother at this point? Article is being actively built up and is probably already a useful resource for readers. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied by User:Samwalton9 as a G11. Procedural close. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WEFM 106.3[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement, requires big rewrite to become encyclopedic smileguy91^talk 16:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to be both not notable and purely promotional. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HaHaHa Production[edit]

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

explicit selfpromo and advertising The Banner talk 15:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Entirely promotional. Most major contributors appear to have an affiliation with the subject. The sources are dodgy at best. Harry Let us have speaks 12:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Purely promotional article with no indications of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promo for youtube channel, non notable Bentogoa (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maa Patana Mangala Temple[edit]

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

Unsourced, article is almost purely a legendary tale. Also no reliable sources prove notability. smileguy91^talk 15:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A10 speedy copy of Maa Patana Mangala. Bazj (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As only one RS has been presented, which does not fufill the requrirements at WP:GNG, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Gawler[edit]

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

Not a sufficiently notable person for a bio. Some incidental notability comes via Ian Gawler and the cancer-related controversies there, but none of substance to Grace that I can see - hence the current article contains unsourced, off-topic & coatracked content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ian Gawler at best. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject per WP:GNG and article with references that fail WP:V. BakerStMD T|C 17:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most Notable: Do not delete. I am the editor of the article I'm willing to work with you to improve it. Gawler is very notable and one of Australia's important cancer practitioners. She has 40yrs service to cancer patients, director of 2 cancer charities, author 4 cancer books, host of her own cancer radio show for 2.6yrs, published in Medical Journals etc- Do not delete but open to improvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipcornall (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that support the contention Gawler is notable?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's this good source. The Age. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)#Youth. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Adult Volunteers[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:NONPROFIT, unable to find significant independent coverage Deunanknute (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also not able to find independent coverage; merely a couple mentions in articles about former YAVs who had been hired for various jobs and the articles listed that amongst their past experiences. Probably notable within the Presbytarian Church community, but does not yet have the level of global notability required for a Wikipedia article.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- This article seems to be largely based on the content of denominational website, givng news of their year-out programme for young adults. This says there have been 1250 participants in 20 years. I do not think that an average of 63 per year is enough to make it notable. It might however usefully be merged (as a short paragraph) to the WP page on the denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Presbyterian_Church_(U.S.A.)#Youth. Pax 04:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2NE1. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minzy[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion because it fails to show this person is notable outside the work of her group. She has no significant solo work and almost none the references mention her alone but are about her group. All the work listed appears to be work she did with her group. Since it appears on the page she has done nothing outside her groups work, I think this article fails to show notability of the person and furthermore the album information is redundant from the groups discography article. Peachywink (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2015 (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/2015 February 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Her only possible claim to fame is her duet song with CL, which doesn't seem like enough to satisfy WP:MUSBIO. She has no solo work. --Random86 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2NE1: per argument by Random86 and nom. Tibbydibby (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per above. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2NE1 as plausible term search. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity culture[edit]

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

Article relies primarily on WP:ORIGINAL research rather than reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, the subject may be too nebulous to be the subject of an encyclopedic article. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Celebrity culture is certainly a valid article topic. There are stacks of books discussing the topic, and even a handful of scholarly journal articles. The current content here, however, is not really representative of that body of work. I'm uncertain whether it's so badly lacking as to warrant a TNT-deletion, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous books about the topic and so it is quite notable. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Article should be improved, not deleted. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the link to Google news at the top of this AFD, and it has "13,600 results". This is notable thing. The article just needs improved references. Dream Focus 04:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Shea (playwright)[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable under WP:WRITER. Quis separabit? 03:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN AS OF NOW UPON IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO ARTICLE. Quis separabit? 15:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of passing notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep readily sourceable with a quick search. Writers (and the theaters that produce them) should log on and write better articles. He's produced a the Huntington, a major regional (Boston) theater company. Just went back and added a couple of sources, without scratching the surface. Lots more out there. Didn't even search for sole source in article, which simply reads Boston Herald (no date, no link, no title), but there probably was a story in the Herald.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some material, sources to this article on local playwright. Written up in the 2 big, regional papers )Boston Herald, Boston Globe) and in 2 local papers in his hometown (Somerville). Shea is a regional playwright who is a bit hard to look up because of his very common name (John Shea - Irish name in an Irish town like Boston) Nevertheless, he has been produced in regional theaters in and around Boston, and has been profiled, interviewed and reviewed in Boston area newspapers. This is more than sufficient to merit a Wikipedia page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scotia-Glenville Pipe Band[edit]

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

SUccessful, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND, WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lizabeth Scott. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lizabeth Scott (criticism)[edit]

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

Most of this article isn't about her specifically or is an analysis rather than criticism. Some of it could be merged to her main article and the rest jettisoned. AFAIK, no other actor, even those much bigger, has a "criticism" article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Main editor on subject's article seems WP:INVOLVED, and this is a pure WP:FORK, though not in the usual view of that policy we usually bring articles here for, just not understanding our guidelines. Talking to said editor and maybe merging in a few things might work for this, although with criticism (most of it from not-living people), it's subjective. Nate • (chatter) 05:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to reedit the Lizabeth Scott (criticism) article, but will refrain as the underlining concept itself is being challenged here as illegitimate. As the "main editor" on the subject, the purpose was to reduce the size of the original Lizabeth Scott article by moving the criticism section into the filmography (Lizabeth Scott (works)), but it didn't really belong there either, so the material was split/forked off into a third article. The idea of a criticism article of an actor may be novel, but can be useful to some readers. Histories of critiques of actors' performances is certainly of interest to those interested in film, but is being thought here to be too specialized or unorthodox by some for an encyclopedia. It's impossible to predict what the readers of Wikipedia would find interesting or useful, though I understand there must be limits to an encyclopedia and it cannot be all things to all people, despite all the journalists and bloggers who used both Scott Wikipedia articles after her death (2/6/2015), often copying the articles word-for-word. But I won't challenge the proposed deletion. I'll leave it to Clarityfiend's discretion as to "Some of it could be merged to her main article and the rest jettisoned."Jamesena (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The bloated size of Lizabeth Scott can be addressed by editorial choices. Much of the coverage of particular films, for instance, can likely be moved to the respective film articles, and additional biographical information can be condensed by relying less on newspaper articles (which by their nature reflect isolated moments in time), and more on secondary/tertiary sources like biographies or encyclopedias which synthesize and contextualize info. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete - Making sure to remove at least an equivalent amount of superfluous content from the considerably over-long Lizabeth Scott, as has been suggested. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 22:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:FORK. She was not so notable a person, nor so prolific an actor, that her bio requires a separate criticism article. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Dairy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The only reliable source references are an article not about the company (wilx) and one obviously written straight off a press release (Mlive). This is essentially a local company in the lansing MI area, with nothing to distinguish it from any other local grocery chain John from Idegon (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, no evidence of notability. Tigraan (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, after searching, i guess, since I don't find significant coverage on-line. Or "weak keep" okay too. There likely is local history off-line. The store chain has existed for a long time, so I'd be interested in saving the article for further development. The search links above look for "Quality Dairy". Adding "Michigan" helps, e.g. searching Google books for ("Quality Dairy" Michigan) yields some hits, e.g. some Quality Dairy memorabilia for sale. Trying ("Quality Dairy" Lansing) is a bit better, yields:

this 1955 coverage of a Quality Dairy marketing innovation in American Milk Review: what i can see includes:
By KEITH OLIVER. A drive-up window where customers can buy their milk and dairy products without leaving the car is a sales innovation developed by Quality Dairy Stores in Lansing, Michigan. Stimulated by slushy, wet winter weather and customer observation how nice it would be to make purchases without battling the elements, Quality Dairy...
:and more about it being a drive-up window, and started at a specific Lansing store in December 30, 1954, but as of writing in 1955 something "remains to be seen".
2007 business Directory mention, what I can see is: "Quality Dairy Company 947 Trowbridge Road East Lansing, MI 48823-5217 Milk, ice cream and fruit juices President/owner: Stan Martin Estimated Sales: Below $5 Million Number Employees: 2 Type of".
numerous more directory mentions
various mentions in novels/biographies "worked as a stock boy at Quality Dairy"...
~~This Google book hit is about a Quality Dairy in Michigan back in 1921 before the 1930's founding date cited in the article.~~ Oops that is a mention of a Quality Dairy in Minnesota, not Michigan.

Google scholar searching on ("Quality Dairy" Lansing) yields more hits, including

this 2010 article studying grocery stores in E. Lansing: "Apples and Oranges? Classifying Food Retailers in a Midwestern US City Based on the Availability of Fresh Produce", but full article not available.
And this master's thesis which seems to have yielded this 2010-published article about "food desert" in Lansing (but has just one QD mention) and [http://www.allenneighborhoodcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2004-Brian-Thomas-Study-of-ANC-Food-Security.pdf this working paper, maybe the same material, and
this marketing study (for a Michigan State credit union?) about profitability of ATMs placed at Quality Dairy branches and elsewhere, in which the Quality Dairy placements are the most profitable actually.

Google news searching on ("Quality Dairy" Lansing) yields:

this 2000 news article about "PopStraw" marketing innovation, following on Q.D. president having spoken at a conference about success of clear single-serving bottle
QD production manager to speak at a 1970 Michigan State-sponsored? Agricultural Marketing conference/workshop about QD success with "blow mold non-returnable containers", and some "Picture Pak" packaging.
1984 ammonia leak into milk bottling, 2 children burned by it but not severely hurt, recall of 2,000 gallons.
1995 liquor license legal case for one branch near a church and this follow-on and 5-10 more articles about case as it went through appeals, etc. Maybe already mentioned in Wikipedia article?

There's some but not a lot more info for the article at the Quality Dairy's story webpage, already cited.

Hmm. So, seems like maybe series of marketing innovations would be usefully mentioned in an article about Q.D. And the lawsuit i guess. But I think they don't establish notability really. Would need some off-line substantial coverage to make this worthwhile.

--do ncr am 00:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Savages (Breathe Carolina album). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collide (Breathe Carolina song)[edit]

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

No sources and it does not meet WP:NSONGS. IPadPerson (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Savages (Breathe Carolina album) - fails WP:NSONG. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Savages (Breathe Carolina album). It does seem to be one of their more popular songs, but, regardless of notability, this stub has no reason to be broken out into a separate article. Does not help the reader. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secular icon[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH of various "non-religious" usages of the term. A brief google search does show the usage of the term, but in wildly different contexts, so I non't believe that there are scholarly sources which discuss this term more than just a casual usage; I haven't even seen a dictionary definition for the term. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect I agree with what somebody wrote on the talk page 7 years ago, "This should be merged with, and then redirect to, Cultural icon." --Gaff (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am strongly opposed to merging of unreferenced text. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per CSD G12. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Munhóz[edit]

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

No notability established. Sources are blogs with some interviews. Text is overly promotional. seicer | talk | contribs 04:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, surely needs some wikifying and rewriting, but most sources are definitely not just blogs; article passes our WP:GNG. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy WP:TNT per C.Fred's discovery below.Comment: Which of those awards are notable? (I'm assuming city lists aside from maybe Rio aren't, whereas nationwide ones could be.) Pax 08:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start from scratch with free text—current version is copyvio. I think the author passes GNG. The problem is with the prose: it's copied from http://www.carolinamunhoz.com/blog/english/ wholesale. Since there's no free license posted on that page, we can't use it. The article cannot be used without a complete rewrite. —C.Fred (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XMLmind[edit]

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

Non-notable software. PROD declined by page author. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - as above, also appears to have been blanked by creator Deunanknute (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This seems to be one of the most popular editors for the Docbook format. Which may be minor unless you're a technical writer. But this editor and Docbook are what O'Reilly use to publish their programming language books, the famous ones with animals on the covers. In my mind, that alone makes it notable. There were also the following hits on the web: [6] [7][8][9][10] [11]
And a couple of mentions (recommendations) in Books: [12] [13]
To me this looks like plenty of material for an article. Enough to meet WP:NSOFT. It's from a small software company in France and is still being developed, with the last upgrade last month. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Top Banana[edit]

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

Non notable obscure zero-hit band. damiens.rf 16:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will note this is Damien's second attempt at deleting this article. That in itself is not too bad but I think there should be a limit as to how many times articles should be allowed on VFD, because I have seen some of them get nominated over and over, causing endless, needless discussions about the topic. With that said, my vote is an obvious keep-if I didn't feel they were notable enough in the first place, I would not have written the article. Plus, they had hits in Puerto Rico and other Latin countries. Antonio El Loco Bravo Martin aca 5:17, 13 February, 2015 (UTC)

@AntonioMartin:, I don't remember AFD'ing this article before, and I have failed in finding the previous discussion. Please provide the link for it. I'm highly interested in how this article could have survived a deletion discussion before, as you arguments seems to be implying.

Delete. I think "obscure no-hit bands" can still be extremely notable, but I couldn't find any decent coverage of this band whatsoever, at least in English. I'd change my vote if someone could procure reliable sources in another languages, or even bring a source showing they had a release appear on a national chart, as AntonioMartin claims above. Earflaps (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right, Damiens, in this case. I was apparently thinking of the time you kept taking the group's name off the Top Banana page instead. For the record this is the first time the page is up for deletion. Antonio La Maquina Loca Martin (cool dude's talk page) 14:15, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the current refs do nothing to establish notability; some simple googling didn't give me any info either. Is "Grupo Top Banana" the band's actual name? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments have been made to show how this article passes the requirements at WP:POLITICIAN. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Blair[edit]

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

This page has been tagged as may not meet notability guidelines and needing additional citations since its creation in June 2010. Blair is a member of a council for a small city (circa 40,000 residents), which I don't believe makes him notable.

Blair is only notable for one issue, so WP:BLP1E applies. That controversy does not seem to have had persistent coverage in the media. WP:N This man is not notable. Martin451 21:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Martin451 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Martin451 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Martin451 21:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to present evidence that the subject should be presumed notable under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ANYBIO despite the lack of sources. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are twelve members or former members of the Bangor, Maine City Council with Wikipedia articles, at least two of whom went on to high office, William Cohen and John Balducci. This person was also a radio personality. The article needs improvement, more information helpful, but the subject is notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, Prescott has about five thousand more population than Bangor. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Billy Hathorn: WP:OSE and WP:CRYSTAL. The subject may be notable, but we should not care whether he is more notable that someone else or if he is likely to become notable. Tigraan (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN; city council members of smallish cities are not inherently notable. It doesn't matter if some other city council members from some other cities have articles; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. He also fails WP:GNG; he attracted a little bit of coverage over statements he made as a local talk show host, but it was a short-lived, single-issue controversy of only local interest. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dinesh Subasinghe. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rawan Nada[edit]

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

A non-notable album. Does not satisfy the criteria under WP:NALBUMS. Dan arndt (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2015 (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/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. User:Dan arndt Dan arndt (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links and references for 'rawan nada'(Ravan Nada) (User:Musiclanka talk)

there are many links can be found.even oline purchasing ones too,and can be found in local news papers about

Ravannada or Rawan nada.same about one album

Articles

http://archives.dailynews.lk/2009/04/01/fea21.asp Ravan nada goes big time Data can be found about the 'rawan nada Album

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/090524/Magazine/sundaytimesmagazine_00.html In search of Ravana in Sri Lanka Sata can be found in the 11 th paragraph regarding on the album - Comment this is simply a passing reference that Subasinghe released the CD.

http://www.snipview.com/q/Rawan_Nada - Comment this just repeats the WP article (see WP:CIRC)

http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2009/04/19/rev03.asp Reviving the tunes of the past data can be found in 4th paragraph - Comment this is simply a passing reference that Subasinghe released the CD.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2428806912/nm5653084 imdb - Comment a photograph of the artist with CD does not establish notability

http://archives.dailynews.lk/2012/12/19/fea21.asp Data can be found under the topic of musical stint - Comment this is simply a passing reference that Subasinghe released the CD.

online links for listning and purchasing

http://www.amazon.fr/Rawan-Nada-Dinesh-Subasinghe/dp/B00IA7RL16

https://itunes.apple.com/lk/album/rawan-nada/id815187773

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=9253972

http://www.mixrad.io/in/en/products/Dinesh-Subasinghe/Rawan-Nada/65396201

www.rhapsody.com/artist/dinesh-subasinghe/album/rawan-nada

Comment The above links only show that the album was released by a Dinesh Subasinghe, which in accordance with WP:NALBUMS is not by itself reason for a standalone article. The above-mentioned links fail to establish any notability for the album, they are just an indication that the album exists.Dan arndt (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dinesh Subasinghe LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Santa Monica Mirror. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Century City News[edit]

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

Also related to Michael D. Carlin/Tupac:187, which are all up for deletion. I can't find anything to show that this small newspaper is ultimately notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. I can find trivial references saying that they interviewed someone, but not anything that actually focuses on the paper indepth. The closest thing I found was this link by the Santa Monica Mirror saying that they acquired the paper. Other than that I can't find anything to show that it really merits an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santa Monica Mirror, where it is already mentioned. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santa Monica Mirror. I found this mention at LA Weekly, but I'm not sure that it helps much. It's borderline trivial. I don't think this newspaper really qualifies for an article yet. There are so many notability guidelines and essays scattered around the project that I can't even remember where it was, but I remember reading somewhere that newspapers generally have a lower threshold of notability than other topics, since it's difficult to source them (newspapers generally don't write stories about their competition). Still, I'm really not seeing much of anything. So, I'll go along with a redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Carlin[edit]

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

One of several articles that I came across via the AfD for Tupac:187, I can't find where Carlin is ultimately notable enough to warrant an article. He exists and his work exists, but I can't see where he's ultimately notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. There's the barest assertion of notability so I don't know that he's really an A7 candidate, so I'm bringing this here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whoa. I've seen one of his films. I spent about two hours scouring Google to find information on who made it, and I found nothing. I spent another hour checking again now, and there's still nothing. But if he contacts me, I might join a fan club for Prison Planet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Star Writers Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonnotable now-defunct syndicate. While it had a handful of notable writers, it does not appear that the syndicate itself ever received any coverage outside of press releases. Original closure was a non-admin closure. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources being available to improve the article.[14][15][16] It not being done does not equate to a deletion rationale. The previous non-admin close was not flawed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the specific sources about the group? Google searches are not sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might say "All writers syndicates will have Google Hits, since their name is included in the bylines of their published articles as a matter of regular business. But Wikipedia only covers notable writers syndicates. What shows this to be notable compared to any other writers syndicate?" -- GreenC 12:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS - There's lots of sources that can used!, Thargor Orlando - Once this is kept you would need to click on every one of those links and add it to the article. –Davey2010^Talk 16:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Philippine Science and Technology[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal that hasn't published a single item yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with reasons given by proposer. There does seem to be an explanatory editorial published online [17]. I also found some coverage of Philippine Science Letters [18] which was was first published in 2008 but as far as I can see never had an impact factor associated with it. I agree that the subject of this article doesn't meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NJournals and WP:TOOSOON. Without any independent evaluation (e.g. a SCImago report) we have nothing to base an article on. Additionally, the article as written looks heavily promotional; this could be cleaned up, but without sources nothing would be left. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While editor-in-chief Padilla-Concepcion is Vice-President of the University of the Philippines and member of the National Academy of Science and Technology, her "Philippine Science Letters" didn't make it to a large-scale success, though relevant in the Philippinian context. Her new project may succeed or fail, but we should wait to see if it is launched at all. Note however that in a country that lags behind U.S. scientific publishing standards, a publication may be of domestic or even regional relevance without having an "impact factor" attached by western referees. --PanchoS (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Also does not pass WP:NJournals. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not enough time to become notable. No non primary sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johar Abu Lashin[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Minor titles only. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question He definitely fails WP:NBOX since his titles are minor ones. Does being the subject of a documentary make him notable? I don't think the documentary meets the notability requirements for a film, but that's not really my area of expertise.Mdtemp (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX since his titles are minor ones. I don't think the documentary is sufficient to show notability because I haven't been able to find anything that shows the documentary received any coverage out of the ordinary. These days technology allows everyone to make a movie, so I think the documentary would need to be somewhat notable to make Lashin notable (and then I might argue for a redirect). Papaursa (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX with titles only from some of the many minor organizations. The documentary question is interesting, but I agree with Papaursa's comments about that. Right now I don't think he meets WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG to his nation of origin.24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 02:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homero Fonseca[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Minor titles only. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and lacks the significant independent coverage needed for GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass WP:NBOX. No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and he fails to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG to his nation of origin.24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UNICE global brain project[edit]

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

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

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

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

I have no idea what this is really about. Most sources are primary, and the only sources that are independent are in the criticism section which, as pre-2010 sources "critiquing" a 2015-born project, sounds much of synthesis. Also bundling those "associated Wiki-UNICE topics" listed there, because I just have to ask did Wikipedia really allow this part to be on it. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as original synthesis as well as lacking notability. I can't find evidence of discussion of this in independent, reliable sources - zero relevant hits on Scholar (note: when doing your own searches, watch for false positives generated by the University of Nice Sophia Antipolis (unice.fr) and the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe; the three apparent hits you get when searching for "Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Entities" all stem from authors having tried to look up the union acronym expansion - presumably via Wikipedia's disambiguation page - but having failed and picked the wrong one), and a handful of self-published hits on Google proper. One non-primary book hit - in a book marketed with "Can you put together the similarities and understand the TRUTH that organized religion and the government have sought to keep from us? Do you have the ears to HEAR?"...
And as pointed out, the only non-primary sources in the article are synthesis - various sources talking about a world brain, a global brain, AI or consciousness in general being synthesized into discussion about this non-notable concept instead.
As for the "Wiki-UNICE topics", WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kolbasz (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. Have also added Prod tag to Wiki-UNICE topic: U.S. Drug Policy. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - The main topic seems non-notable, while the subtopics aren't even encyclopedia articles. The subtopics in particular should be deleted per WP:NOT, as they are intended to be used for people to collaborate on finding solutions to problems. Those pages seem completely incompatible with Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia, and with core policies such as WP:OR. Calathan (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - subjects in question have not received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources, thus not passing WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Save article - Delete the 4 related wiki-UNICE collaborative topics - split decision for me. I agree that the collaborative articles do not fit on Wikipedia. Rational wiki would be a good place for that. The UNICE global brain project is an interesting and potentially useful effort, however, and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. The UNICE concept was written up and presented at a 2008 conference on consciousness, so it's been around and percolating for some time elikqitie (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Lynndunn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Save article - Delete others - I see everyone's point in deleting the collaborative articles, even though I posted them. However, please keep the encyclopedic-style main article.Rachelm9 (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Rachelm9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Save UNICE global brain project - Delete the wiki-topics - There is a place for the collaborative wiki-topics and it's a good idea to have something like this somewhere. However, I must agree with the consensus about deleting them because they do not fit the wiki guidelines. However, the article should be left alone (and perhaps cleaned up a bit) and there can be links to another type of wiki that allows users to work out solutions to public policy problems.Delhi3 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Delhi3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: This probably belongs on a noticeboard (ANI?) as well, but the articles are apparently a concerted effort by the UNICE project itself (see also page 4 of the "founding article) - beware of canvassed and COI editors. Kolbasz (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagging three commenters as SPAs for articles relating to Michael E. Arth (the creator of UNICE). Kolbasz (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:N. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a generic online collaboration website as the people behind this seem to think. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of the articles meet WP:GNG--the only non-primary reliable sources I was able to find are about the broader topic of global brain, and we already have a page on that topic. Content in each article appears to be original research and synthesis, so it should be deleted until it gains sufficient notability. Shanata (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Garrison[edit]

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

While he may satisfy WP:PROF criterion 1 I do not have any way of verifying that. He does not show up on Highly Cited Researchers. He does not meet any other criteria listed in WP:PROF. He does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Whether or not he can be somehow shown to meet WP:PROF-1, there are no reliable sources to verify his notability or sustain an article. Fails WP:NRV. The article lists no secondary sources that talk about him. All references are to his own books and papers. JBH (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - With the addition of sources, particularly the UToday one. I feel the WP:NRV issue is taken care of. Also, from those articles, there is no question that he had a major effect on his field. JBH (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely highly cited according to GScholar (more than 20k citations total, with 6 works above 1000). Article needs a lot of care, though. I'd also suggest moving it to D. Randy Garrison. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 02:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Suzuki[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable author. Only external citation minor Daily Mail snippet from several years ago. Doesn't meet notability standard of wp:blp Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment debate is in the wrong "Places and transportation" AfD category. AadaamS (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry - it should have been in the "people" category. Not sure how to fix that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, put it into biography category. Sorry for the mixup. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tempted to suggest that the fact that NOBODY has commented one way or the other on this AfD since the 10th (except to ask me to fix a clerical error) points to the author being non-notable, is a delete possible at this point? Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely low participation could be closed as no-consensus keep with no prejudice against speedy renomination (WP:NPASR) among other outcomes. Though a quick news search indicates that the writer's notability seems to be confined to only local press about local book events. Also there is one other Julia Suzuki who is a tennis player. Tentative delete. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation and promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart School, Sitamarhi[edit]

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

Article is copyvio, but author continuously removes speedy and copyvio tags. Not to mention article already exists at Sacred Heart School. Also, two disruptive probable-sock accounts are the only contributors. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete it as copyvio and promotion (and warn the accounts), but I do need to note that the second article you mentioned is actually a disambiguation page and shouldn't be seen as a pre-existing article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the future if they do that then just let an admin know so we can take action. No need to take this to AfD unless they fix the issues on the article, since copyvio and spam are two things that will still exist even if they remove the speedy tags. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rape jihad[edit]

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

I came across this via speedy deletion as a WP:G4 candidate since the topic was deleted back in 2013 under the title Rape Jihad, where it was argued that it was too much of a neologism to pass notability guidelines. This article is somewhat different and has additional sourcing, some of which is fairly recent, so I've decided that this should go through a second AfD as opposed to just outright deletion. If this is deleted a second time via AfD I'd endorse this getting salted to prevent recreation before the article/topic gets approved via deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the prior AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape Jihad. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wanted to nominate this myself. The sources used here that use the term aren't really scholarly or unbiased (National Review and FrontPage, for example) or reliable (Daily Mirror and Uday India). The only decent sources, the BBC and the Guardian, don't directly use "rape jihad", but only point to its use among the openly Islamophobic English Defence League. What's really troubling about this article is that it misses this nuance, and suggests the "rape jihad" is indisputably a real thing, "the abduction, gang rape and enslavement of non-Muslim women by jihadists". There's nothing here to overturn the consensus of the previous AfD.—indopug (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous Afd, WP:NEO. Salt both the titles. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, Salt titles too. –Davey2010^Talk 16:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Oh no, are the many solid RS "biased" (i.e., came to a conclusion you didn't like)? Well...that's a tough pork-chop; chew harder. Nobody is going to report on a demographic-warfare tactic without having a pretty strong opinion of it, either for (Muhammad) or against (the filthy kafir targets). Pax 03:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to remain WP:CIVIL while taking part in an AfD. In any case, the basic argument against the articles and the sources seems to be a lack of scholarly sources. Sometimes unbiased websites can be used as a reliable source but they should not be the only places to report on the term as it is written in the article. However in this case FrontPage has been deemed an unusable source at RS/N as a source for factual information on multiple occasions. The basic gist is that many of these pages can be used to back up opinions depending on who is writing the article, but they can't be used to back up something as fact. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are non-binding discussions (crowded with partisans, of course) full of "allegedly" weasel-phrasing like "...not generally regarded as...", etc. If FrontPage (et al) were actually verboten, they'd be URL-blocked (e.g., examiner<dot>com). Pax 08:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It takes a lot to blacklist a website and the powers that be usually look at the website, if it's verifiable, and how often people use or misuse it as a source. If the website is so notoriously bad or unusable and attempts to add it as a RS to Wikipedia are so widespread that it becomes an issue of disruption (and becomes a spam issue), then they'll blacklist it. Otherwise they just generally leave it up to editors to find and remove or replace any sources that would be considered unusable in specific situations. In other words, they only blacklist sites under extreme circumstances. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if you want to open up a new thread at RS/N addressing the site's usability as a RS and previous RS/N discussions over the topic, you should feel free to do so- especially if you believe that the prior consensuses were subject to bias. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the rewrite (see below), that shouldn't be necessary anyway, as the article no longer hinges on, say, FP. (It should be noted that Spencer is notable in his own right, and so it subsequently doesn't matter who's relaying a quotation provided it's accurate. In any event, the genie has left the bottle and is now in wider use.) Pax 11:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the fact that the only user arguing in favor of keeping it (Раціональне анархіст) can't do so without being offensive goes to show why this page is inherently POV. Only articles cited that actually use the term "rape jihad" are on far-right websites. Super gross motivations here. CircleAdrian (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that just about everything appears to be "far-right" to a communist (as you proudly describe yourself on your user page).

What you're essentially proposing is that an unsavory tactic be put out-of-sight/out-of-mind because all of its current practitioners belong to a certain religion whose other adherents and defenders are ever sensitive to criticism, unlike those of other faiths who've evolved to handle the heat). But this is all beside the point, since the article is abundantly RS'd (despite your attempt to smear them), and !vote tallies are not what matter in the end. Pax 07:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've rewritten the entire article to a neutral tone and prettied it up in other ways; it now contains three-dozen sources. Pax 09:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick ctrl+F tells me that many of the newly added sources do not contain the words "rape jihad" at all. Interestingly, some don't even have the word "rape"...—indopug (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary for all of the sources to; what matters is that sufficient RS do. It should not be in dispute at this point that there is sufficient usage of the term "rape jihad" in reliable sources. (The remainder of sources are there to buttress the other facts asserted in the article so as it does not become festooned with useless {citation-needed} tags because, believe it or not, there are plenty of people around who resolutely prefer to believe these incidents have not even happened, or, when dragged into reluctantly agreeing that they have, will nevertheless maintain there's no common connection.) Pax 19:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per nom. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not appear to have read the article prior to forming your "strong" opinion, as it has been completely rewritten since nomination. Expanded comment: I am also under the impression that you are nursing a grudge (possibly politically or religiously motivated) against the creator of the article. Pax 07:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not holding grudge against the user but the user is continuously twisting facts and sources to disgrace my country Bangladesh as well as my religion, Islam. Almost all the contribution and creation in wikipedia is served the above purpose. These types of contribution are not acceptable according to wikipedia policies like WP:SOAP, WP:PLOT, WP:CHAOS, WP:BATTLE. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh is not mentioned in the article. Sounds like a grudge to me. Pax 22:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had voiced my concern in the talk page. I'm putting it as a comment here. This page should not be speedily deleted because this article about a term that has been used by several writers across the globe. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanaraja[edit]

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

Unsourced, no references. Possible merge with Chicken? smileguy91^talk 03:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references. If it may help to undelete it.--Vin09 (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable poultry variety with plenty of coverage in the press, academia and elsewhere. Article much improved and Wikified since nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arb (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Obviously fully notable, reported to DAD-IS by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, extensively discussed in scientific literature. Ideally, the nominator would have performed that search WP:BEFORE starting this discussion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Plenty of academic coverage. I will not DAD-IS is not a very reliable source, but all the rest proves to me that this is notable. Even more can be easily found by a google. Please use WP:BEFORE in future. JT_dale^Talk~ 04:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article has been improved so far and looks like it is notable enough to stay here. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak per G11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 12:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature Sensor Modifications[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:NOTESSAY without any WP:RS. Author admits WP:OR in content. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, which this piece clearly is. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A7. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teenebelle[edit]

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

Keeps on getting the prod/speedy deleted. A band that is WAY too soon. Wgolf (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multilanguage Electronic Publishing System[edit]

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

the article is about a privately owned publishing system used internally by one publishing company, and is based entirely on primary sources (the only secondary source only makes reference to a separate system), and refers to outdated technical specifications from the 1980s. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—MEPS might be interesting. It might be brilliant, or its function might be greatly exaggerated. As an internal proprietary system, the only sources that say anything about it are produced by the corporation that made it. The article clearly fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline, as the subject has received no coverage in sources independent of the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of third party sources. Keep – As historically significant. In the 1980s, a system with the ultimate bucky bits keyboard, supporting dozens of languages. There seems to be some information out there. Here is a list of JW documents. Here is a 3rd party mention. Here is a picture of the computer and keyboard. Here is a list of related copyrights. There may be patents too. It was sold by IBM – see Integrated Publishing System, and the cited 1982 Seybold Report. I think a couple of those should be sufficient for the bare minimum keep. I would be interested in more, especially about the software. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your links to the JW website are primary sources. Of your remaining sources, the 'cloudapp' site mirrors content from the Wikipedia article, and the other only mentions the older system that was sold to IBM. Just to be clear, the Integrated Publishing System that was sold to IBM is not MEPS, it was an older system that was developed separately.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the JW documents was for anyone interested in finding out what we're talking about, not necessarily for inclusion in the article. I'm not clear myself what rights were transferred to IBM. Probably not hardware. The software, custom fonts, etc.? Those would have been inherited by the MEPS system, so it's not clear to me that they were separate systems. Do you have any other objections, other than being based on primary sources? I don't see any mention of Wikipedia on the the cloudapp page, and the Seybold Report is a secondary source. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is self-evident that the text at the cloudapp page was copied from the MEPS article; the text relating to MEPS at that page is verbatim from the second paragraph of the History section of the Wikipedia article (in fact the entire page is a collection of extracts of Wikipedia articles containing the word "photo-typesetters"). And as I already stated above, and as explicitly stated at the MEPS article, and in the copy of the text at the 'cloudapp' site, the IPS system sold to IBM and mentioned in the Seybold Report was a different system that was developed separately. So, as already stated, IPS is not MEPS.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Could you describe how they were different? – Margin1522 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source explicitly states that the independent systems were developed concurrently (however, MEPS was not completed until 1983, whereas IPS had already been sold to IBM by 1982), and that hardware and software was developed separately for MEPS. It is an irrelevant red herring to expect me to know specific elements of the proprietary system beyond those facts already provided. However, one of the primary sources does indeed state the fact that they were developed separately:

To meet these needs, one team of Witnesses began work in Brooklyn on a system that employed a large IBM mainframe computer as well as IBM text entry terminals and an Autologic corporation phototypesetter. Nearly a hundred miles away at Watchtower Farms near Wallkill, New York, the other team started work on an in-house-produced system they called MEPS.—Awake!, 22 April 1984, page 23.

So, as I have already clearly told you several times, and as explicitly indicated above, the systems were developed independently, in entirely separate locations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm still not certain. The second reference in the IPS article says "IPS, a purely software solution developed by the Watchtower publishing arm of the Jehovah’s Witnesses." It also says "Marketing, licensing, and support for IPS were handled for the Witnesses by IBM, on whose mainframe it was designed to run." So it's unclear whether all rights to IPS were sold. IBM may have been the marketing representative. Also it sounds like IPS was software designed to run on a mainframe, and MEPS was the same software running on JW-built hardware. It just seems rather implausible to me that the Farm team would duplicate the work of designing the fonts and laying out different languages if that work had already been done in Brooklyn. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you think "seems rather implausible". What matters is the sources, and they explicitly state that one system was developed on IBM equipment and later sold to IBM, and another system was developed separately and is only used internally. MEPS has no notability outside of the internal proprietary system used by Watch Tower.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I think is that this system was historically significant as the most advanced multilanguage typesetting system of its time. It's no accident that it developed by Jehovah's Witnesses, because they are one of the very few organizations interested in creating printed materials for languages with only a few thousand speakers. Another way to look at it is that nobody cares except JW, and therefore not notable. We can disagree about that.

About whether the software was developed independently for MEPS, you keep insisting that it was, but what I see is that separate systems (hardware, software, and peripherals) were developed. I concede that the hardware and peripherals were different. But my view is that since it would take a team of designers several years to develop bit-mapped fonts in multiple pica sizes for 6,000 Chinese and Japanese characters, not mention other scripts, it's unlikely that they did the software twice. In other words, my interpretation of the sources is different from yours. I am not ignoring the sources, I am trying to understand what they say.
All of this would be rather academic, except that it affects whether we get to include the Seybold Report as a third-party source. Neither of us have read it, but this being AfD it's important to determine whether the system attracted outside attention once it became a commercial product. You say no, different system, I say yes, same software. We can disagree about that too, no problem. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that 'only JWs care' is an irrelevant misrepresentation. There is very good coverage on Wikipedia of many topics that are specific to JWs. The fact that the subject 'relates to JWs' is not the issue here. The issue is that MEPS is a proprietary system used internally by a publication company, and it has no notability outside of primary sources. Continuing to mention the Seybold report (September 1982) is also irrelevant misdirection because it says nothing about MEPS, which never became a commercial product. MEPS hadn't even been completed when IPS was sold to IBM in 1982. Awake!, 8 March 1986, page 27 states: "It was not until November 1983 that the first MEPS phototypesetter was put into production use." Also irrelevant is your own unsourced speculation about the development of typefaces, and it is contradictory to imply that the software or the typefaces for IPS were both sold to IBM and also retained by Watch Tower. However, the assertion about typefaces is a red herring, since there is no indication that the typefaces were sold to IBM as part of IPS, and IBM had its own typefaces.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try to explain my view as plainly as I can. I think that the development of the core software for the Jehovah's Witnesses' typesetting system was a single effort that began in the 1970s and has continued up to the present day. In 1982, this software was part of a system called IPS, a "purely software solution" which ran on an IBM mainframe. In 1982, IBM entered into an agreement with JW according to which "Marketing, licensing, and support for IPS were handled for the Witnesses by IBM". The quotes are from the reference cited above. Note that, contrary to the text in the article, it does not say that all rights to the software were "sold" to IBM. On the contrary, it implies that JW retained the right to use this software internally. In 1986, this same software was running on a different hardware platform that had been developed inhouse by JW, on a system called MEPS. But it was the same software.

As evidence that it was the same software, I have pointed to the time and expense of developing typefaces. Here are some references for that (and please don't object that these are primary sources, because I'm offering them for discussion only). Here we read that "Fonts had to be created for each language. This was a major project not only because fonts were not readily available then as now, but because each of the many thousands of fonts for the Japanese language had to be created a pixel at a time." Here we read that JW "were evidently the first people in Myanmar to compose and publish literature using computers...The MEPS system, which used elegant Myanmar characters designed at our branch, sent ripples through the local printing industry." And here is a reference to this book, which describes "Typeface Development". Since you have made so many comments on JW topics you might know this book, or even own it. If so you can check page 597 and satisfy yourself that JW did in fact develop typefaces.

All of this is for the purpose of citing the Seybold Report on the JW typesetting system, which is required for an article to survive on AfD. I'm satisfied that the JW typesetting system existed and that the report referred to it, so I'm going to !vote keep. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about your speculation because it is unsourced, and it is wrong. I have already quoted a Watch Tower source that explicitly states that MEPS was developed independentally to IPS, at a different location. Development of both systems began independentally in 1979 at different locations. IPS was a software-only system that was finished by 1982, and it was written for use on existing IBM hardware. It was sold to IBM in 1982 and mentioned in the Seybold Report in the same year before MEPS had even been completed. Development of MEPS included the development of hardware, and then software for that hardware. None of the sources even remotely suggest that the same software were used. However, even if it were conceded (it is not) that MEPS used software from IPS, it still would not mean that MEPS is used outside of its proprietary use within Watch Tower, and still wouldn't have any notability outside primary sources. If I write software that incorporates code libraries from Microsoft Office, it doesn't make my new software notable just because Office is popular, and that would remain the case even if I had substantially contributed to code for MS Office. But as already stated, there is no indication from the sources that MEPS incorporates software from IPS. If there were any source for your claim that MEPS uses IPS software, that source could be used in the article for IPS but does not confer notability on MEPS, which remains an in-house non-commercial proprietary system.

Your continued digression into typefaces is irrelevant, because a) it is neither evident nor necessary that the typefaces would be sold with IPS to IBM and b) not all languages were immediately supported when the system was first developed. The (primary) sources you've indicated specifically indicates that the number of supported languages is extensible. In particular, regarding the source about Myanmar, it only indicates that support for that language had been added by 1989, and has no bearing at all on what typefaces might have been available when MEPS was completed in 1983, or when IPS was sold to IBM in 1982.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I admit that I'm indulging in a bit of speculation here. This often comes up in my day job. When you have a vague sentence that can be interpreted in two ways, and have to choose one, then you have to do some research and draw on your field-specific knowledge. We have a couple of rather vague sentences in the sources, and two interpretations. I've offered some evidence for my interpretation (primary sources, but better than nothing) and some field-specific knowledge. For example, in those days, users didn't just abandon large software programs. They kept using them, often for decades. That's why COBOL survived for so long. That may be "speculation", but it's better than nothing. Meanwhile, for your interpretation, you've offered nothing except typographical table pounding and assertions that your view is obviously correct and mine is wrong. Hey, you could be right! And you have the advantage that we are at AfD, where the default outcome is delete and only the delete side gets to say "I demand proof!" All I'm saying is that, to me, my interpretation seems more reasonable and has more evidence, so for now I'm going to stick with it.

About the article itself, it's too bad that we don't have enough material to write about this system in more detail. But there are a few things that we can say about it. Someday a professor giving a class somewhere might be able to use it as an example of how the dissemination of religious texts has been important in the history of translation and multilingual publishing. This has been true ever since St. Jerome and the Polyglot Bibles, and it's still true of JW and their 600-language typesetting system. I think that's interesting, so if possible I'd like to keep it. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Do you genuinely not understand that there must be sources supporting your claim for it to be valid? You haven't provided any source that supports your 'interpretation', which despite your claim, isn't supported by any evidence. Even the primary sources you've provided do not support your claims. Your characterisation of the AfD process is incorrect but irrelevant; so far only one person (you) has responded—with quite a lot of "typographical table pounding". Without careful consideration of the fact that your entire argument is based on speculation, the article might even be retained, despite the fact that only primary sources discuss MEPS at all, and no sources support your speculation.

Since its first appearance as a copy-and-pasted copyright violation from a primary source (Awake!, 22 April 1984), the article has been granted a great amount of latitude to remain for as long as it has in the hope that it would be improved by secondary sources to indicate notability, but that has not happened, and is unlikely to ever happen, as it is about an internal proprietary system.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all of this I've been trying to make a very simple point. The statement "the subject has received no coverage in sources independent of the subject." in the nomination is wrong. It has been covered by the Seybold Report. Whether one third-party source is enough (usually it isn't, but sometimes it is) will be up to the closer and the other !voters. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeating this lie. The Seybold Report from September 1982 does not mention MEPS. The Seybold Report was about IBM's use of IPS, which it had acquired from Watch Tower in 1982. MEPS was still in development at the time; MEPS wasn't used in a production environment until November 1983 (Awake!, 8 March 1986, page 27: "It was not until November 1983 that the first MEPS phototypesetter was put into production use."), and wasn't completed until 1986 (Awake!, 22 February 1987, page 27: "In 1979 a team of Jehovah’s Witnesses at Watchtower Farms began developing a computerized system, called MEPS, for producing literature in many languages. By May 1986, when the project was completed"). The JW book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom (which you cited earlier in this discussion) further states that the software also wasn't completed until 1986 (page 596: "By May 1986 not only had the team working on this project designed and built MEPS computers, phototypesetters, and graphics terminals but, more important, they had also developed the software required for processing material for publication in 186 languages.") Your repeated claims that MEPS 'probably used the same software' as IPS does not constitute a reference to MEPS in the 1982 Seybold Report.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is the first piece of evidence you've provided. So it sounds to me like the team at the Farms began developing their software in the late 1970s, around the same time that Japanese companies like Fujitsu and Hitachi (and later IBM) began developing the first versions of their proprietary software for processing Japanese. (See here, in Japanese) Those companies then deployed their software to a variety of hardware platforms, including mainframes, "office" computers, word processors and PCs. But since I have no proof that JW did the same (although that is by far the most likely scenario) I will have to concede that the Seybold Report could possibly have been about a different language processing system. And since "by far the most likely" is not good enough for AfD, I am changing my !vote to delete. If someone wants to read about this system, they will have to look somewhere else. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I quoted one of the sources about 24 hours ago that confirmed that MEPS had not even been completed when the Seybold Report wrote about IPS, and the quote about 1986 that I hadn't already provided was from an article you had already cited yourself. Since the sources explicitly state that MEPS was developed by a separate team at a separate location, it is not even 'most likely' that it was the 'same system'. But I appreciate that you are now correctly adhering to what the sources actually say. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for my !vote are as stated above. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Redundant response to superfluous comment.]--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without independent third party sources it fails the notability test. BlackCab (TALK) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of appropriate sources (GNG, etc.) as above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Šramková[edit]

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

Player does not meet tennis notability guidelines: No wta main draw or fed cup appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category and has no notable junior career. Had been proposed via PROD but tag was removed by IP editor with no reason given. Fazzo29 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet the guideline criteria, or GNG. Mostly mentions in results lists, or database entries. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion is a nonsense, but no problem, she is in few weeks relevant. :o --Nina.Charousek (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet the WPTENNIS notability criteria or GNG. Article can be temporarily copied to a user page if the expectation is that she will become notable soon. --Wolbo (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No indication of notability. Does not pass WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS. A lifetime best ranking of 540 is a long way from being notable and the only references do not show significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm going to transcend the normal AfD rules that this be closed after seven days since this situation falls under the speedy keep guideline: "The nominator withdraws the nomination [...] and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." Thank you, (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dallmeyer[edit]

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

BLP has sources, but isn't listed as cast member on the claim of notability (the film) Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. Seems borderline, and as a prolific playwright with largely "WP:LOCAL" Scottish sources thought this BLP needs scrutiny, (especially cautious as creator is suspected COI editor from sockfarm of >50-100 accounts at WP:COIN) Widefox; talk 01:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Agree with everyone that it meets GNG. Anyone can speedy keep. Widefox; talk 21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Nomination (and interaction history) seems to be more about WP:IDONTLIKETHISEDITOR than about the article content or topic. Dallmeyer himself has a footprint, on even the most cursory glance, where national newspapers treat him as a "veteran playwright" and that's enough for an AfD on a newly created article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:IDONTLIKETHISEDITOR is linked at WP:AGF. He may be notable as a playwright... are any of his plays notable? Does he fit that notability standard? As an actor he isn't in the (primary) cast list, which was the notability claim being made here. Widefox; talk 11:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do his plays have to be notable in addition? William McGonagall would seem to be the obvious counter-example, as a clearly notable author whose works were rather less.

We require attention paid to the person by credible independent sources. We have that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the guideline is WP:ENT 1. "multiple notable films" fail 2. not asserted 3. not asserted. So no (as an entertainer, which was the claim of notability told to me). I'm assuming a playwright is covered by WP:AUTHOR, does he pass that? Widefox; talk 12:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR 1. maybe? 2. not asserted 3. not asserted 4. maybe? Widefox; talk 12:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the general case? We want him to be covered in multiple reliable sources. There are articles written specifically about him, in national publications. Worm^TT(talk) 13:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My nom concern was to see if he's notable per consensus of ENT (as claimed) or seemingly more likely he may pass WP:AUTHOR, but to look at GNG...

WP:BASIC "Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria,...such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not." (WP:NOT). NOT has WP:NOTADVERTISING (where WP:COI is a see also). The article has improved, and agree meets GNG, and some of the COI/factual/promotional/POV has been addressed and is fixable. Widefox; talk 00:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William McGonagall is clearly notable as the "worst poet in history" (and has one notable/notably-bad poem and other quotes). There's no equivalent superlative claim being made here. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. Widefox; talk 09:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In depth articles at a local level (Local being the capital of Scotland). Widespread mentions at a national level (Scotland is a nation). Has won a notable award (BAFTA). As Andy points out, he's regularly referred to as a "veteran playwright", his plays have aired on the BBC and have been covered by national newspapers - (eg Playing a blinder on BBC Radio 4, Jan 2002 - covered by Scotland's The Scotsman, UK's Telegraph and even Italy's Il Post). The individual is clearly notable. Worm^TT(talk) 13:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't ever won a BAFTA. No. A BAFTA Scotland Award is not a BAFTA Award. Different award, event and org arm. I've corrected the article. Widefox; talk 00:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Please excuse my newbie entry, I'm afraid I do not understand the protocols and procedures here).

Keep Question: Why is Andrew Dallmeyer a valid entry on Wikipedia?

Answer: He is well known within the theatre business as well as having a good reputation with the general public.

In terms of output he is primarily a writer with over 75 works to his credit, yet he is most highly regarded as a director.

The entry may have placed an incorrect emphasis on his acting but should that warrant deletion? His notable works include "Opium Eater" "Hello Dali" and, especially in America, "Thank God For John Muir".

If I am wrong about the criteria for entry into Wikipedia, I await enlightenment. VanGoeden (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)— VanGoeden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The acting is now de-emphasised. (I already moved it out of the WP:LEDE). We're not judging notability by the actor criteria now. Widefox; talk 00:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So we now have an WP:SPA account, making two WP:COI editors. VanGoeden is right - the notability claim appears to be playwright (and lessor stage actor). He's a prolific playwright (as I said in the nom). Still may not meet WP:AUTHOR. Widefox; talk 00:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is enough reliable source coverage already in the article to justify inclusion. LOCAL is an essay which explains ideas that have explicitly failed to gain consensus for (not) establishing notability in the general case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did some copyediting on this article. I would have approved it myself if I had a bit more confidence. I was shaky on the wiki-ability of the article (sources, etc.). The notability of it? Nope. Never questioned that. Passes WP:GNG, and WP:BIO with flying colours. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 16:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy J. Meyer[edit]

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

This is one of the article related to Dan Glaser and is one that sort of makes up a bit of a walled garden. That aside, I just can't find anything to really show that Meyer is really notable enough to warrant his own article. He exists and has been involved in Pinching Penny, but other than that he just hasn't done anything to really warrant having his own article. Since there is a slight assertion of notability here, I figured that it'd be best to let this go through a full AfD as opposed to redirecting to the film or just tagging it with another form of deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need to note that after trying to clean up Pinching Penny, I realized that it didn't have enough notability to pass WP:NFILM and have nominated it for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything worthwhile. It's mostly just blogs and social networking. I tried "Timothy J. Meyer", "Tim Meyer", and "Tim J. Meyer". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Fire[edit]

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

This looks to be your standard, run of the mill non-notable book. Other than some non-usable blog reviews and equally non-usable reviews on literary social media and merchant sites, there just isn't anything out there that covers this book. I can't find anything out there to show that this book passes WP:NBOOK. The book exists and looks to be popular enough, but existing is not notability, popularity is not a guarantee that something will gain coverage, and none of the self-published reviews out there are the type that would give notability. (WP:ITEXISTS, WP:POPULARITY, WP:SPS)) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:NB, thought maybe an article on the trilogy of books or author but again wouldnt meet notability Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any professional reviews. Author's blog doesn't link to any, either. It's very difficult for self-published authors to get any attention, and this seems like another example. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reviews in reliable sources that would meet WP:BKCRIT criteria 1, or evidence that the book meets any one of the other criteria in that section. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources necessary to meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Boyd Barty[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:GNG. No sources to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Obituaries in the Scottish Law Review and Sheriff Court Reports and the University of Edinburgh Journal. His books went through multiple editions (normally an indicator of popularity) and are cited by other works, including bibliographies. James500 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(with regret) delete (or possibly, redirect to a Dunblane history section). I am afraid that witing a town's local history does not make a book notable. The republication with an additional chapter was presumably in the aftermath of the Dunblane school massacre, to cover subsequent events. Getting local history publihsed in book form is not easy, due to the limited market. I fear that this points to a lack of notability for the book, and the author of a NN book must also be NN, unless for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense from start to finish. Firstly, he clearly satisfies GNG due to the two obituaries in academic journals which you have ignored. A book's inclusion in selective bibliographies is relevant by the same logic as the "selective database" argument of NJOURNALS. Your (frankly muddled and incoherent) argument seems to be along the lines that anyone who has written a book about local history is presumed non-notable. That is simply wrong in principle. That is a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. You have also fallen into the trap of assuming that the book is the only thing that makes him notable. Obituaries often fail to say why someone is notable, apparently because they assume that the audience already knows. I see this all the time, particularly in publications from that era. You (and others) made the same mistake at the AfD for Arthur Irving Andrews because you failed to realise that he satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO because you assumed that the biographical dictionaries cited told the whole story, and didn't look for further sources. What should have been going through your mind was "this man's biography would not be included in these publications unless there was a good reason, even if it isn't obvious what that reason is just looking what they say". Likewise with the obituaries for Barty. As far as I am aware, academic journals, and especially law reviews, don't publish obituaries of non-entities. Moreover, you also need to actually read these sources. Unless I am mistaken, the obituary in the University of Edinburgh Journal says that Barty was, for example, amongst other things, secretary of the Scottish Law Agents Society, which sounds like a major responsibility/achievement that is more important than the book. Do I really have to micro-analyse the whole biography for you? He also wrote other books: His History of Dunblane Cathedral was reprinted in 1995. As for your comments about the circumstances under which the second edition that book was published, it is manifestly wrong, because the second edition was published in 1994 (50th anniversary of the 1st edition), two years before the massacre in 1996. James500 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference used is his own book. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): In view of the fact that there are clearly other sources available (eg the obituaries: [19] [20]), are you questioning Barty's notability or simply suggesting that the article should be blown up for using an inappropriate source? If the latter, would it help if someone was to rewrite the article with better sources? James500 (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it's clearly a narrow decision. The obituaries cited by James500, on inspection, meet the requirements of WP:WHYN - just enough information from reliable secondary sources to write an article and to determine the veracity and notability of the subject. It might be a good idea to add the obituaries as inline sources, though, or we'll all be back here for a second nomination at some point in the future. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to close this as delete and I think that's the most likely option right now, based on arguments rather than numbers. The obituaries are linked but the snippet views do not allow us to see whether we're talking about "real" obituaries or single-paragraph notifications. Given the absence of other secondary sourcing I doubt that they were in much depth. Second, if the book is cited, evidence should be presented--but simply giving a list based on Google results is not enough. I found a few citations but their weight is difficult to establish--remember that citations can prove the work is important and has had an impact, which in turn suggests that some citations can be more important than others. This one cites a document cited in Barty's book, and this one cites him in four of the footnotes. They do not suggest that the book is of great importance: the book itself or its author are not discussed. Rather than close it, I'll leave this note here as a pointer, of what kind kind of evidence a closer would be looking for. I'm leaning delete, I'm sad to say. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It is possible, by manipulation of Google Books' search engine, to extract fairly large passages of books. The obituary in the Scottish Law Review and Sheriff Court Reports, to begin with, appears to me to be a lengthy, blow by blow account of his life. (2) If you still have doubts, the solution is to go and look at a physical copy of those periodicals in a library. NRVE says that sources have to actually exist. It does not say that those sources have to be available for free on the internet. In fact, our policy is that they do not have to be online at all. (3) I am inclined to take the view that "significant coverage" must be something detectable with snippet view, precisely because that is the tool we have to work with, whether we like it or not. (4) The apparent absence of other secondary sources may be because GBooks is said to be missing three quarters of all books. For every source we have found, there are probably another three that haven't been digitised yet. On top of that, Google's search engine doesn't produce all the results it should for any given expression. James500 (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you say "appears to me" means you didn't actually see them. That, plus the rest of your comments, suggests you are arguing that because we can see a tiny little bit, there must be more and we should therefore close as keep. Of course sources don't have to be online, but you can't cite what you can't see, and you can't say "keep" based on what you haven't seen. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, "appears to me" means I did see them, by doing this, then this, then this, then this, then this, then this, and so forth, through the rest of the publication. (Note that he was secretary of the Scottish Law Agents Society). Likewise with the other source: [21] [22] etc. This technique isn't difficult, and you should be able to do it yourself. I used the word "appears" because depth is an inherently subjective concept ("how long is a piece of string"). I wouldn't describe the average snippet as "a tiny little bit", as you do. My idea of significant coverage is any decent sized paragraph, so this is a clear pass of GNG in my opinion. And common sense suggests that a person who died in 1940 who was secretary of the aforementioned society, and etc etc etc, is worthy of notice per WP:NHISTORY (still a draft proposal but lifted more or less verbatim from an existing guideline). The rest of your comments are nonsense. If you can't read the source online, the burden is on you to take yourself to a library and read it there, before arguing for deletion. We have a strong presumption against deletion at AfD, and NRVE does explicitly say that "there is likely to be more coverage offline" is a perfectly valid argument. James500 (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an additional "good" source, an obituary in The Glasgow Herald, a national newspaper: [23] (article titled "A Dunblane Solicitor: Mr Alexander Boyd Barty" in the fourth column headed "obituary"; not particularly easy to read directly, but here is part of what Google's OCR produces: [24] [25]). There is probably plenty more material if anyone actually bothers to search. James500 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection, I find there are indeed further newspaper articles from the Herald: [26]. Here is one titled "Centenary Of Dunblane Legal Firm" from 1929. This one, the heading of which I can't clearly make out, though it might be "inherent right of people", is probably more important, as it appears to describe him as "Sir Alexander Barty". If that is true, he automatically satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO, as a knight. James500 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Contrary to what Drmies writes above, if this AfD was closed now, the only possible outcome, in my view, looking at arguments rather than numbers, would be a clear keep. Every !vote arguing for deletion above either represents that the obituaries do not exist (mistake of fact), admits to having not read them fully and not knowing how detailed they are, or advances arguments that have no apparent basis in any policy or guideline. That is my assessment of consensus. James500 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Scott (playwright)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Notability claim seems to hinge on awards and reviews. The AASCA gives an award to every qualifying play performed at the festival. The Short+Sweet Wildcard award is for a single night of a multinight festival (and winning is sourced to a WP:SPS, the festival's site doesn't seem to bother listing it.) The reviews listed in the opening are from a university paper, the NODA website (doesn't mention Scott), and PlaysToSee, which is a user-submitted review site and thus not significant. Other references uses: APP.com (Asbury Park Press) is just a single-sentence passing reference. Goarticles.com appears to be a self-publishing platform, and thus a WP:SPS. Other sources are subject's own theatre group and band. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. This was my first edit and this morning I have noticed it's now up deletion. Thanks for the message above although I still comfused to what I have done. What is it you would like me to do to rectify the problem to keep this page? What evidence would suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playsthething (talk • contribs) 08:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper sources have now been added. What else do you think will help save the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playsthething (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about the AASCA and I agree that maybe this should be removed. (Which I have done). I don't understand where you've got The Short+Sweet festival site doesn't bother listing it. I've just found it withing 30 seconds. The NODA review doesn't mention Scott but it is about his play. It is cited under the fact that reviews have given special mention to particular lines. I'm also a little confused as the writer above is. What exactly is regarding as a submittable review. If NODA doesn't count as it doesn't mention a name, playstosee isn't notable enough, a university one doesn't count then we aren't leaving much option except newspapers. (Which I note have been added since my article was put in for deletion) Ashbury park press only gives one line - but it's still a line which backs up the point he is working with this particular group. Whether it is one line or a page it still backs the point up. Also in the case of this particular point, the play is scheduled this month and so maybe there will be more information available then. I'm also not sure about goarticles.com. Why doesn't this count? I'm not trying to be rude, far from - I just want more clarification into why some of these don't count. How is this self promotion?

I have also added several more cites. One for IMDB as I've noticed when reading about articles for deletion that IMDB is a credible source. I hope this helps in resolving the matter. I also ask with the writer above for advice on how to improve this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackHowardFacts (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, my apology for missing the listing at Short+Sweet; I'd made the mistake of searching for Robert Scott rather than the play name, and thus missed this page... but as that page makes clear, the awarding of a wildcard slot is just means it was the play from that day's performances that was chosen to move on to the finals, it is not an award across the entire festival.

My discussion above is about the notability of the subject as demonstrated by the sources. So the APP sources is perfectly acceptable as a source for information, but being mentioned in one sentence does not indicate any real notability, it's not what we call significant coverage. We also consider self-published sources (including ones done through some sort of automatic publishing system without presumed editorial control) not to be real indicators of notability, because any one person with no real weight behind them can post them. (Also, if you click on these words right here, you'll see an explanation that we absolutely bar self-published sources from being used in biographies of living people (with the exception of the subject making noncontroversial claims about themself.) That's what the Goarticles source qualifies as, a self-published source. The question of whether NODA counts goes to trying to establish notability under the guidelines for notability of creative folks such as authors, to see if they qualify under #3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." NODA does not appear to be a periodical. I hope that this clarifies some of what I was saying above for you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I have edited the page and taken out go-articles as I now understand what you mean. I've also added a significant number of newspaper articles for more notability. (Also as earlier mentioned I have added IMDB notability too). Hope this helps. JackHowardFacts (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More notability given by online newspapers and magazines. JackHowardFacts (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a case to be made on notability, it's in the Derby Telegraph material. Many of the other items added are simply event listings, which are fine for showing that something exists but doesn't show it's of import. IMDb listings are understood not to confer notability, as they are a database and seek to list everyone with a credit on projects within their purview. (Also, its ability to have users submit information keeps it from being considered a proper reliable source.) I have not yet taken the time to look into the Telegraph to see if this is a regional paper that carries some weight, or just a local paper doing a "hometown boy makes good" type of story. (I would appreciate any fellow experienced Wikipedia editors taking the time to voice their views on that.)

I also find curious the number of editors whose edits seem to have focused solely on Robert Scott. I would like to recommend that such editors review Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest, and if a conflict does exist, that the editors declare their conflict. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 11:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inflated, and poorly sourced. I do not see notability per our guidelines here. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the company he runs (Medusa Theatre group) were written up, or if he or one of his plays was written up in a newspaper other than the hometown Derby Telegraph, or if he had lengthy profiles on the pages of theaters more notable than the Medusa (the small company theater he apparently helped establish in Derby in 2011) then... but as is, not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Liverpool F.C.. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liverpool Captains[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unnecessary content fork from parent article Liverpool F.C. JMHamo (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary content fork. If by any chance it is kept, the title should be amended to List of Liverpool F.C. captains (lower case C on captain) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as properly sourced and not so lengthy as to give undue prominence to the subject in the parent article. Fenix down (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as being the creator of this page I have to explain its inclusion on Wikipedia. First and foremost I believe that I have followed all the guidelines of Wikipedia and also have added proper citation to the article. All the disambiguation links have been fixed by me for the betterment of the page. I have no problem if the title requires amendment or the page is merged with another relative page. I don't see any particular reasons for deleting this page.Sammanhumagain (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly defined list of a notable attirbute. And cleanup - no need for three columns, have one, and expand to include number of appearences, goals, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unneccessary content fork, WP:FANCRUFT applies. Giant Snowman 13:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No obvious reason to have a separate article for this. Make a single-column table in the List of Liverpool F.C. players article, similar to the list that exists in List of Manchester United F.C. players. – Pee Jay 01:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Liverpool F.C. players or Liverpool F.C. whichever is more appropriate. Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Moon's Hypnotic Time-Travel Adventure[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a children's book. The only source that I could find was this. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 13:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These articles seem in progress and the author is significant in the field. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 23:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. –Davey2010^Talk 02:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Moon, Micky Minus and the Mind Machine[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a children's book. The only reliable source that I could find was this. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 13:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These articles seem in progress and the author is significant in the field. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 23:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 13:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ceradon - Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. –Davey2010^Talk 02:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the recent work by MelanieN (bless her soul) and several others, I think the notability of the article is fairly established under WP:CORP. (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry Insurance[edit]

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

MOst certainly probably notable but needs a full rewrite with ade1quate sourcing and removal of spam elements. I am therefore nominating it for afd for the full rewrite needed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* KEEP I've worked on this article in the past and, yes, it needs some expansion and better citing, but it is not unlike many slowly expanding stubs. It doesn't need a rewrite so much as an expansion. It has the beginnings of what you would want to see for an article on an insurance company. It gives the number of policy holders and reserve/surplus info, lists lines of business, shows the AM Best rating, and list subsidiaries. All of this is typical of articles on insurance companies. It should be easy enough to find citations for all of this. Low hanging fruit for an expansion would be more content on the founding and growth of the company. Also it would be good to list the states of operation so the reader can get a feel for the size of the company.

Also, I'm curious about what you thought was spam in the article. Thanks. HornColumbia talk 02:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS- I did a little cleanup to show that it wouldn't take much to give this article a little better base for for future growth. It now has section headings and a few more citations.HornColumbia talk 04:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat surprised you can't see the promotional language and info being used. For example the operations we don't need. The operating surplus and budget doesn't do anything but say they have money. This is an encylopedia article, what would a reader need to know how much cash on hand a company has or it's rating? Those are promotional languages, usually people in marketing aren't able to see those types of languages because they are desensitized. Do you have connection to the marketing or this company? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are not in the insurance industry. Surplus is a standard measure of the company size. It should be listed in any insurance company article. HornColumbia talk 02:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A company of this size and age (more than 100 years old, housed in a NRHP-listed headquarters) certainly seemed likely to be notable. So I have added several references and am in the process of adding more. I think it will easily pass WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A billion dollar company in the Fortune 1000. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per the discussion herein and after two relistings, the overall impetus for article retention is present, although more participation would have been ideal. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Braha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Marnie the Dog (the dog Braha owns) is more notable than her. She was the tv producer for 3 shows. Per WP:ENTERTAINER, she's doesn't meet notability guidelines of having done something significant. Has mere mentions in articles when they are more about the dog than her, so fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New York Noise. It's the only thing notable about her, and she is already mentioned there. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep: After some research, I conclude that the subject meets WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 22:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current references in the article (as of Feb 17 2015) count as in-depth, independent and reliable sources, plus there are more possible such as this one and this one. Clearly meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think this one squeaks by: weak keep. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If the coverage is lacking there is nothing on the fringe. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley secessionism[edit]

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

At best borderline in notability, patently fringe ideas and idle chatter and the article does not reflect that. No evidence that this has ever been a serious thing anywhere; instead it's padded with tangential content that smacks of synthesis. Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are problems with it, which isn't unexpected for such a new article, but the idea has received relatively extensive coverage in reliable independent sources, which should suffice for notability. I don't see the WP:SYNTHESIS problem, since although there are inferences in the article (such as connecting seasteading etc to the topic), these are inferences made by the sources themselves. WP:FRINGE doesn't preclude a fringe idea from having an article, the main idea is rather to prevent fringe ideas from being given disproportionate attention in comparison to mainstream ones (plenty of tiny political groups and ideologies have their own articles, after all; the key criterion is independent coverage). At most I'd recommend incubation, but I'm not convinced it's so bad as it stands. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no less serious than the related Six Californias proposal - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fringe idea, being promoted by a couple of prominent people at a conference or two. There is no evidence anyone is taking even a tiny step to make this happen; it's just talk. The sourcing isn't sufficient for an article: two stories by the same author in New York Magazine; an article in Fortune; and a paragraph in a larger article at Business Insider. Six Californias is different, it was an actual proposal that got as far as a (failed) attempt at a ballot proposition. Silicon Valley Secessionism isn't a real proposal; it's just a few people flapping their jaws. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a thing that exists, but has garnered very little media attention and virtually no voter interest. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 18:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Silicon Valley secession seems to be genuine idea. No more fringe than a lot of secessionist movements. Liam987 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely FRINGE with no evidence of the extensive coverage required by NFRINGE in contrast to the Six Californias proposal referenced above, which is drowning in mainstream RS coverage. NFRINGE makes it pretty clear that the notability bar is higher when we are talking about stand alone articles for patently FRINGE subjects. Also we cannot create articles that give equal or greater weight to a FRINGE theory or idea than to the mainstream position. Because this topic is so loony I have serious doubts it would even be possible to rewrite the article to comply with DUE and PROFRINGE due to the dearth of coverage by mainstream sources. The bottom line is that the subject fails NFRINGE and the article as written fails both DUE and PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ad Orientem. The only notable notion mentioned in this article is the failed Six Californias initiative, which was not about succession in any way. We already have an article about that, and should get rid of this one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. The subject has received one piece of in-depth/significant coverage in a news blog of the The Daily Telegraph. One reliable source does significant coverage from multiple secondary or tertiary sources make. Therefore, the subject does not appear to be notable as defined by GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The meatpuppetry here is no more than a minor irritation. The votes may be in favor of "delete", but policy is not: Sergecross73's analysis of the sources indicates clearly enough that there is in-depth coverage by reliable sources, and if they're on the fence, the conclusion should be keep. The comment by Pax, though apparently controversial, is worthwhile pondering as well. One more thing: Jory should stay away from this article. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jory Prum[edit]

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

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

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

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

Shameless autobiography of an apparently wholly non-notable sound engineer. Sourced mostly to IMDb, YouTube, various wikis, blogs and the like. No in-depth coverage whatsoever; several of the sources cited, such as the Chicago Tribune, do not mention him at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Justlettersandnumbers is shamelessly pursuing deletion of this article based entirely on it being autobiographical. The editor sent multiple warnings as I worked on substantial revisions to the old article in my sandbox (in an effort to ensure neutral tone and provide citations for all information included) and has tried to find any excuse possible to make it appear as if the citations are not of quality. If this editor's standard was applied to other people, it would prove difficult for anyone to be considered notable or for a citation to be made that referred to modern forms of media.

Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art, which means that direct mention within news media is extremely rare. (This concept is accepted to such a degree that books are titled using the phrase: Dialogue Editing for Motion Pictures: A Guide to the Invisible Art). As such, articles like the Chicago Tribune citation Justlettersandnumbers singles out are provided as verification that the film attributed to Jory Prum did indeed appear in the festival. A further citation is provided which links to the film itself, allowing anyone to see the direct connection of Jory Prum to the achievement of having his work accepted into a highly regarded film festival. Film festivals commonly refer only to the director of a film by name, not the audio engineer.

As IMDB is considered a poor source due to its self-editability, YouTube citations were provided to verify involvement on projects such as The Walking Dead: The Game and Broken Age. Jory Prum was deemed notable enough by the Nordic Game Conference to be invited two years in a row to give keynotes at the major conference on video game development. The fact that one of the projects discussed in a keynote also has won 90+ Game of the Year awards and multiple awards for the voice acting/performances (which, again, are partially attributable to the invisible art of audio engineering and dialogue production), would, in many people's eyes, make for further notability.

Another YouTube citation features Ralph Eggleston, the director of the Pixar film For the Birds, accepting the Academy Award for "Best Animated Short Feature". In his acceptance speech he personally thanks "Skywalker Sound, Jory Prum, and The Riders in the Sky for their wonderful sound work". One could argue that being personally included in the same breath with the highly-acclaimed Skywalker Sound during an Oscar acceptance speech would indicate notability.

Further, Justlettersandnumbers effectively declares all wikis and blogs to be valueless as citations. Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki, was cited as additional verification of involvement as part of the LucasArts sound team and projects worked on during that time. It is easy to see that the Wookieepedia article on Jory Prum both verifies this information and was created in 2009 by a user who is quite obviously not Jory Prum. The other wiki/blog cited is the fan site for "The Walking Dead" series, which conducted interviews with many members of the audio and voice team responsible for the game. The page was created by Kaffe4200 and the history of that page indicates it has not been created or edited by Jory Prum.

One of the blogs cited is an interview Jory Prum's alma mater conducted regarding his involvement with "The Walking Dead: The Game" and how his studies at CalArts influenced his work. The citation is provided both to verify involvement with the project, as well as verification of attending the California Institute of the Arts and some biographical information about his mentors and focus of study.

Additionally, several Wikipedia articles refer to Jory Prum, including the article for Grim Fandango, the classic LucasArts adventure game. The Grim Fandango article points out Jory Prum's involvement in the restoration work of that classic title and cites a long-form article at Polygon, a premier video game news website. The long-form article spends about 20% of its coverage discussing the work Jory Prum performed, which was critical to the remastered edition, released in January 2015. A YouTube video is also cited in regards to this project, during which the highly respected composer Peter McConnell praises Jory Prum's work in the restoration efforts, stating "...it was a real nail-biter because, you know, all those performances were tucked away on these tapes. But we got 'em, thanks to a guy named Jory Prum, who's a genius who lives around my area, who does...just knows everything about everything technical."

Lastly, while working on the substantial revision of the article, I made efforts to discuss the neutrality, the quality of citations, and the qualification of notability with both Justlettersandnumbers and Jimfbleak, another editor. The discussion is documented on my User_talk:Jory#February_2015. It is clear that Justlettersandnumbers is preoccupied with the autobiography aspect and uninterested in the actual content, whether it is neutral, whether the article is of value, or if notability is established. Justlettersandnumbers's only qualification for notability in this case appears to be whether someone unconnected has authored the article, and therefore Justlettersandnumbers has decided the test is failed merely due to the autobiographical involvement.

I therefore rebutt Justlettersandnumbers's assertions and ask that the article be kept.Jory (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I speedied the first draft of this, but I was asked to help improve it, and since autobiographies aren't actually forbidden, I cooperated with that request. It's worth following the talk page link above to see the discussion. I did point out that although the article was probably safe from speedy deletion it could be nominated here. Because of my involvement with this article, I don't intend to vote to keep or delete Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It is apparent that the Wikipedia editor fighting to delete the Jory Prum article, using the ID justlettersandnumbers (JLAN), is the one exhibiting, not only extreme bias, but extreme malice, in a manner which appears to be more consistent with personal vendetta than actual attempt at neutrality.

In other words, the argument for deletion of the Prum article is not a legitimate attempt to "neutralize" content in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, but a biased attempt by a non-neutral individual with a personal grudge, to discredit and malign, using Wikipedia as both the weapon and the battleground, in a "shameless" ad-hominem attack.

In summary, it is the opinions as expressed by JLAN, and not the article itself, that are by Wikipedia's own definitions and guidelines, violations of Wikipedia terms and conditions. CrisCross1836 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)— CrisCross1836 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comments. I disagree with the nomination when it says "wholly non-notable" as clearly there is a little coverage of the subject. The question before us is whether the subject is sufficiently notable for an article. I have my doubts but, much as I distrust autobiographical writing and detest the personal attacks on the nominator above, I am not quite sure enough to vote delete. I am not familiar with the precedents. Do we have articles for similar people with the same levels of coverage? Would other articles regard those accolades as significant? One thing I am pretty sure of is that CrisCross1836 (seemingly an account registered just for this particular issue) is doing anything but helping Jory's cause by hyping up the discussion here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to DanielRigal's question about other articles for similar people with same (or lower) levels of coverage. This is just a random selection I found of other game developers or audio engineers. (It is difficult to find any articles at all that refer to video game audio engineers, most likely due to the lack of coverage the press tends to pay to the contributions of that portion of the games industry.) Sean Clark, Michael Stemmle, Larry Ahern, Paul Wedgwood, Jeff Hickman, Joe Sparks, Howie Beno, Mike Coykendall, Niko Bolas, Steve Burke. None of these are nominated for deletion at this time. The Joe Sparks article was tagged for speedy deletion and the tag was removed in 2010 with the comment, "removed speedy tag - there are claims to significance in article". Mike Coykendall was tagged for deletion a year ago, but there is no note as to why the article was allowed to remain. Steve Burke was nominated for speedy deletion, but the tag was declined with the comment, "decline; asserts importance with scoring of video games". Some are clearly tagged as needing improvement or citations. None have very many quality citations. Another good article to compare to might be Jared Emerson-Johnson, a composer I have worked with on a great many projects. We have worked on projects that received awards together, and I have utilized his article as an guide for the substantial revision of mine. Also, I agree with you that CrisCross1836 is not adding to the discussion in a constructive manner. I do not feel that I have been singled out by Justlettersandnumbers; only that the rules are being applied unevenly and that citations are being cherry-picked by the editor to prove a point that is not true when viewed within a larger frame. Jory (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid rationale for keeping an article. All you've done is provided reasons why those other articles should, in theory, be deleted as well. Other sloppy article's not being caught yet is not a defense to keep one at a deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apology for not being clear. I was merely responding to the question posted by DanielRigal about other articles for similar people with the same levels of coverage. I have fixed the indentation to make the response more obviously part of a thread. Jory (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the one who nominated this article for speedy deletion (right here) primarily on the grounds that it was an article that was made by the person who was the subject matter. Looking at the article in its new incarnation, I don't believe that the article has that much reliable sources to show the subject matter being notable. The Polygon article was a nice catch but seeing IMDB, Wookiepedia, a link from Google Groups, YouTube videos and this as sources, along with some references that I'm unfamiliar with their reliable (e.g Lzy Gmrs) really has me believing there's a case of grasping at straws to find some sources to use for this page. GamerPro64 04:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to GamerPro64's comment about certain unfamiliar or "weak" sources. The reason for the Lzy Gmrs citation is because the Golden Joystick Awards nominations data is no longer shown on the official website and most reputable news sites only include a short list, which doesn't mention the nominees for less popular categories like "Best Audio". I have now replaced that flat list from a lesser known news blog with the archive.org cache of the original website. The reason for some of the other citations you are calling into question is not so much a "grasping at straws", but out of an effort to cite information as being credible and not pulled out of thin air. For example, the NY Times link was to verify involvement with the two films listed, since IMDB is considered a weak source and one would hope the NY Times and All Media Guide (which are not user editable) would be considered stronger. The Google Groups citation was to verify the claim of having worked at Jim Henson's Creature Shop. I was not given screen credit for the work I did on a film while I was there and the only online verification I could source was a thread relating to work I had been performing with the Acorn Computer-based proprietary Henson Puppet Control System at the time. I realize that particular citation is flimsy, and if it were to be removed, then there would be no way (apart from my resume and from anecdotes of others I worked with) that I actually did work there. Of course, it is far less notable than having done signature sound design for a PIxar film and being thanked in the director's acceptance speech, and could easily be removed if it is considered too weak to include in the biography. I'm unclear why a YouTube video that contains a third party discussing work the subject did or verifies involvement in a project is considered weak sourcing. There were also two books cited, one published by Pixar, and the other by Oxford University; do those sources not qualify as strong and indicative of notability? Jory (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I cannot get into the significance of references for this article, but I feel strongly about the notability of the subject matter. Alone his recent contributions to the restoration of Grim Fandango, detailed at Polygon, makes him notable to computer (gaming) historians, gamers and others. Ltning (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)— Ltning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep * Without being a game buff, I have always been interested in sound engineering. This is not exactly a high profile profession, and if anyone tells me they know the name of the team behind "Amadeus" or "Black Hawk Down", I'll be the first to call on their b.s. So, any references on "notability" are not only biased, but also very subjective. I think it would take someone really dedicated to the Foley sound effects or sound engineering in general to be able to name team members, even from highly acclaimed films. Returning to the topic at hand, I was quite taken with the in depth article on Polygon regarding the restoration technique for Grim Fandango and it made me want to read up more on the game itself and the crazy people who were involved in that particular task. It would be a shame to have the little information available scrapped entirely because of this controversy...RazvraTina (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC) )— RazvraTina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and this is the first for six years. [reply]

Keep It seems to me to be a well cited and neutral article about an audio designer that has done a lot of important work on several big titles in both games and animation production. When you see people get mentioned by name in articles about projects like Grim Fandango, Sam and Max, For The birds, (or oscar acceptance speeches for that matter,) you would really like your google search to return a well made wiki article to you for more information.SteepMountain (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC) )— SteepMountain (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Can anyone supply more sources that cover the subject, Jory Porum, in significant detail? Outside of the Polygon source, every single one I've decided to spot-check from the article either mentioned him very briefly in passing, or not at all. It needs to discuss him in significant detail for him to meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article.. Without providing more actual proof, all these editors coming out to say it's "a well sourced article" are going to be ignored, because it's a baseless claim. You need to prove what you're actually saying. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the more thorough sources:

* Digital archeology: How Double Fine, Disney, LucasFilm and Sony resurrected Grim Fandango (Polygon)

* From Scarface to Simlish (Mix Magazine)

* The Sound of Norway in Games (in Norwegian) (VG newspaper)

* The Walking Dead Video Game ‘Sound Guy’ Jory Prum Discusses His Work (24700: News from California Institute of the Arts)

* The Walking Dead Wiki Interviews/Jory Prum (The Walking Dead Wiki)

* Fairfax studio finds recording niche with video games (Marin Independent Journal newspaper)

* StudioJory Gets in the Game (ProSoundNews magazine)

* What's Your Story, Jory? Prum Opens Bay Area Video Game Facility (Mix Magazine)

* The Walking Dead - Jory Prum Interview (GameReactor magazine) (video)

* The Voices Behind The Walking Dead (in Swedish) (Level7)

It is challenging for audio engineers to get more than a mention (if even that much) in the media. Most of the time, audio engineers are just the butt of everyone's jokes, not real news or features.

Most of the other citations on the article are merely support for factual data, since Wikipedia requires citations for all information. Jory (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sources:

Digital archeology: How Double Fine, Disney, LucasFilm and Sony resurrected Grim Fandango - Sourced deemed reliable by consensus at WP:VG/S. While Prum is not necessarily the main things being discussed in it, it does discuss him in significant detail. Good source.
From Scarface to Simlish - I'm not familiar with the website, but looking it over, I didn't find anything that made me think it would be unreliable. Much like the Polygon source, he is not the main subject, but is discussed in some detail. Good source
The Sound of Norway in Games (in Norwegian) - I can't read Norwegian, but his name is mentioned 11 times through the article, its a relative long piece, and a photo of him at the top as the main photo, so it appears to cover him in detail. Probably reliable.
The Walking Dead Video Game ‘Sound Guy’ Jory Prum Discusses His Work - Appears to be a non-notable blog from some sort of educational center. Clicking on the author just gave a link to "other things he posted", no info on credentials. Probably not usuable.
The Walking Dead Wiki Interviews/Jory Prum Wikis are almost always not useable - because they are open to edit by anyone, and often run by people of no real authority. Not usable.
Fairfax studio finds recording niche with video games (Marin Independent Journal newspaper) - Link wouldn't work for me, so I couldn't check it. Inconclusive.
StudioJory Gets in the Game (ProSoundNews magazine) - He is the article's main subject, and is discussed in detail. Good Source.
What's Your Story, Jory? Prum Opens Bay Area Video Game Facility (Mix Magazine) - He is the article's main subject, and is discussed in detail. Good Source.
The Walking Dead - Jory Prum Interview (GameReactor magazine) (video) - WP:VG/S doesn't have a stance on whether they're neutral or not. Interviews are generally useable for details, but not necessarily for going towards notability, because it's really more of a first party account. Inconclusive.
The Voices Behind The Walking Dead (in Swedish) (Level7) - I'm unfamiliar with the website, and don't know Swedish. Probably not a good sign that his name is only mentioned one single time in the article. Inconclusive

I'm still on the fence on this one. Generally, its seems like 4-5 reliable sources covering the subject in detail is enough to warrant a "Keep". This one is close. I'm starting to think there could be a policy-based reason for keeping the article, unless someone can present some ways that I'm wrong... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: item #3) Here is a Google Translated version of the article which, while imperfect, will at least get the content across.
Re: item #6) The Marin Independent Journal's website is not working today, apparently. Here is the same article, but through the San Jose Mercury News' website (same newspaper group).
Re: item #10) Here is a Google Translated version of the article which, while imperfect, will at least get the content across. Jory (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 If you are intending to contribute here, note that votes from Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts with few or no edits elsewhere will be disregarded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability criterion. A subject must meet the notability requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, or he/she/it cannot have an article here. This is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards for inclusion. The sources passionately touted above by the author-and-subject of this article do not meet the criteria of independence and reliability. Wikis, Facebook, IMDb and similar sites are neither reliable nor independent. Sergecross finds some of the references to be acceptable, and I respect his opinion, but I am less impressed by the reliability of the sources. As Jory mentioned above, "Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art." Yes, it is. Invisible professions usually do not receive the required coverage. That does not mean they get to ignore or bypass the notability requirement; it means they don't get an article. BTW I trust the closing administrator will ignore all the sockpuppet or meatpuppet "keep" votes here from single purpose accounts. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, I do agree with what you say, and I'm not okay with any of the social media/WP:USERG-violating sources either. I'm open to input on the remainder of the sources. I didn't see anything wrong with them, but I can't say I'm an expert in "sound production" sources or anything, so by all means let me know if I'm overlooking details of the sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per some of the sources Jory has provided and per Sergecross73's analysis of them which I largely agree with. Jory should brush up on WP:COI paying specific attention to WP:COISELF. There is no good reason that Jory's edits should represent 73% of the content and 97% of the total edits. I also trust that the closing admin will ignore the blatant meatpuppetry. -Thibbs (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify my view (in light of Czar's comment below), I think the subject meets GNG. Based on the sources provided. The question balances on how much coverage constitutes "significant coverage". I'd say the coverage is sufficiently significant to give it a pass. -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to state for the record that I have never posted on WP under any account other than the one I am using now, nor have I asked people to post favorable comments, nor told anyone that they should post or what to say. Any comments posted by the users being flagged as SPAs were done by people who were not me and were posted of their own volition. You can call them meatpuppets if you so choose; those posts are not affiliated with me, although it is entirely possible they are people I know or have worked with at some point. I just wanted to make it absolutely clear that I have tried to be honest, straightforward, level-headed, and ethical throughout this entire process and that asking others to post on my behalf in order to influence the discussion here is simply not something I will do. Jory (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jory's shameless and ought-to-know better WP:COI and WP:spammy walls-of-text above are almost certainly counter-productive, but if pornstars get to keep their articles based upon winning significant industry awards, then I don't see why he can't under the same criteria. Pax 01:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of these arguments related to "occupations" are invalid as well. Much like Jory's argument of "well its hard for people in my profession to get sources" doesn't matter, neither does the status of any occupation. It's third party sources to meet the WP:GNG, and not breaking any violations of WP:NOT - this is all that matters. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not so much that this article lacks third-party sources, but that there are few that discuss him in detail, as opposed to discussing things he's worked on and just mentioning him. Even so, there appear to be some that are primarily about him, e.g. MobyGames, GameReactor. Tezero (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobygames isn't a reliable source, it fails WP:USERG. WP:VG/S is undecided on if it's an RS. It's a video interview though, so it's usually considered more of a first party source. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Grim Fandango. I look to WP:CREATIVE. While Prum has coverage in somewhat of a niche field, I see the sources discussed with Serge above and they don't speak of him in such a way to fulfill Creative #1, 2, 3, or 4, which puts us back at the general notability guideline, where there is coverage that isn't quite significant. Again, what is the subject known for? Is his oeuvre cited for its monumentality? The sources do not say yes. Additionally, the article is overrun with details that do not descend from secondary sources as something of a hat rack. I would be happy to reconsider this stance if given more dedicated (and reliable) sourcing. This discussion is no doubt exacerbated by the author's inability to distance himself from the article. Wikipedia and AfD carries along just fine without any of us, and things move smoother when those overly involved can distance themselves. After deletion, I recommend a redirect to Grim Fandango, Prum's most notable work. With his knowledge of and competency with Wikipedia, I hope the author sticks around WP:VG to edit unrelated articles. czar ⨹ 02:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grim Fandango as the subject is not notable enough to have its own article under WP:GNG. Lacks any verifiable sources needed to properly cite a BLP. Aerospeed (Talk) 16:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning weakest of all keeps) - This is a tough one. On one hand, there may be enough coverage to get by WP:BIO. On the other, what purpose does WP:COS serve (and it's quite clear wording) if it has no practical implications (i.e. WP:TNT)? @Jory: Audio engineering and dialogue production is an invisible art, which means that direct mention within news media is extremely rare. - Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs or to provide a venue to celebrate those professions which go under-recognized elsewhere. In fact, one of the common criticisms of Wikipedia is that when it operates according to its own rules, as a tertiary source, it reinforces the status quo (i.e. covers things already well covered). I'd also add that nothing is more effective at pushing the experienced Wikipedian crowd towards delete like a horde of single-purpose accounts !voting keep. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I appreciate your thoughts. I was not suggesting that WP should accept an article merely due to audio engineering being an invisible art; I was more intending the point that while some professions (such as acting or composing) can get heaps of media coverage and are easy to find reliable sources for, audio engineering as an invisible art is particularly challenging to get real coverage. As a professional, I've spent a great deal of time promoting my business and myself, trying to get any coverage I can. Most of these end up as press coverage of projects, though, not of the studio or person themselves. I guess the question I have is what constitutes enough coverage? If that standard is applied equally to all subjects, it certainly would exclude those who may be deemed notable in their own fields, despite not having name recognition outside of their field.

I'd also add that nothing is more effective at pushing the experienced Wikipedian crowd towards delete like a horde of single-purpose accounts !voting keep. I'm curious what constitutes a "horde". ;-) I see three accounts that have been flagged as being irregular editors, two of which may certainly be a single-purpose account. Jory (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I count 4, and then there's yourself, as both the subject and the article creator. (You're not quite an SPA, as you've made edits elsewhere, but you certainly have a bias/invested interest outside of building an encyclopedia.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bangtan Boys. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jin (singer)[edit]

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

Keeps on getting its prod removed by the creator so it went to this-seems to be a very unotable singer and a possible autobio. Wgolf (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has no individual notability outside Bangtan Boys. I doubt it's an autobiography, just created by a passionate fan. --Random86 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Min Yoongi to this. Wgolf (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Person has no notability outside of his group and article has no sources. The article creator doesn't seem to want to add any, either. There is nothing encyclopedic here not already in the group's article. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bangtan Boys (at age 22 it's unlikely he has notability outside the group), and expand the Bangtan_Boys#Members section to include short biographies on band members, at least if any of the info is reliable enough to transfer. Cute band. :] Earflaps (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bangtan Boys. A merge is not appropriate as there are no references at all. -- Whpq (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangtan Boys per Whpq - None this should be Merged as it's all completely unsourced, Redirect should suffice. –Davey2010^Talk 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bangtan Boys. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Min Yoongi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Suga (singer)

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

Unotable, unsourced singer, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin (singer) Wgolf (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has no individual notability outside Bangtan Boys. --Random86 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Maybe these 2 reports should be merged. Wgolf (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bangtan Boys, and expand the Bangtan_Boys#Members section to include short biographies on band members, at least if any of the info is reliable enough to transfer. Earflaps (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangtan Boys. A merge is not appropriate given that none of this material has any references. -- Whpq (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangtan Boys per Whpq - None this should be Merged as it's all completely unsourced, Redirect should suffice. –Davey2010^Talk 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Christian Education and Teaching Association[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG and ORG. Coverage from sole source cited is trivial. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- only marginally useful result found in Google was [27], which appears to be promotional. This means that this subject is not notable enough for an article. —George8211 / T 23:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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