The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt the author article. Delete the list article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheer Ahmed (Author)[edit]

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

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

Re-creation of salted article Zaheer Ahmed, which was speedied three times A7, plus once G3 hoax, and deleted BLP prod once as well, for a total of five deletions. No reliable sources, so I initially BLP prodded it again, but as there's no indication of notability of this self-published fan fiction author per WP:AUTHOR, and I can't find anything in English online about the author, I'm taking it to AFD. If it gets deleted, an admin could rename it to Zaheer Ahmed which would then simplify CSD G4 the next time it's re-created. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it's an unreferenced list of two notable authors, the author above, an unreferenced BLP, one redlinked author on whom the article was AFD'd on notability, and a long list of me-too authors of in-universe stories and fan fiction for the Imran series of novels. The subject of other authors is already well covered at Imran Series, Mazhar Kaleem, and Imran Series (Mazhar Kaleem):

List of Imran Series authors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Per Nom Himanshugarg06 (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and nom may also wish to consider a bundled AfD for Mazhar Kaleem (I find it highly unlikely that a single author has written over 300 novels, suggesting he lends his name to any struggling ghost writer for a percentage), Imran Series and Imran Series (Mazhar Kaleem) (his alleged books, no sources), Imran series characters (rambling fan-cruft and probable copy-vio with digging), Ali Imran and Family of Ali Imran (characters from the novels), and List of Imran Series authors (the title of which stipulates multiple authors). Pax 10:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. The trouble with foreign language authors is that sometimes they will never receive RS coverage in English, although typically if an author is overwhelmingly notable then there will typically be some sort of chatter on the Internet in English. Other than a few dubious sources, I can't really find anything out there. A Google search for the author's name in Urdu ([10]) brings up very little, which gives off the impression that if this author does exist then he's just not that notable of an author. Being prolific does not automatically guarantee notability, although it can make it more likely and ultimately at this point in time authors can only become notable via coverage in reliable sources- which does not seem to exist right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt per above. We are not a web host. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-everything has been said. Wgolf (talk) 17:47, 25 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. Per the consensus reached at the previous AFD, and the lack of arguments for inclusion in this AFD, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Tha Rapper[edit]

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

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

Part hoax, part exageration, part wishful thinking, wholey not notable. Pretends to have signed To Universal Music Group but that is sourced to a bad press release, not to a reliable source, not to UMG. Claims to have released a single featuring Kurupt but there is no independent reliable sources that verify this, nothing from Kurupt to verify this. Even if true none of the claims make him notable. Current sourcing is three bad press release (that don't even verify the claims they follow) and one shop. Per WP:BEFORE I wasted some time and searched for good sources but as expected came up empty.The last press release has been removed from 13abc but is available here. It comes from Morrison Media Group, see Maat Morrison (another non notable kid lied about on Wikipedia by socks). This kid is simply not notable, the $1.5 million contract is made up and given the quality of his output Extremely unbelievable. This article is a joke. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 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 by nominator (non-admin closure) Aerospeed (Talk) 12:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kakrala Bhaika[edit]

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

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

I'm having difficulty locating any sources of this place, and although Google Maps says this place does exist, the numerous tags on the article lead me to believe that the article is either non-notable or a hoax. The article has been tagged for having no references since 2011, for not meeting WP:GNG since 2012, and tagged as an orphan since 2012 as well. Since there is no notability guideline for places (as far as I'm aware of), I'm going off GNG here and saying that there's no significant coverage, no reliable sources, and those that I have seen on Google do not suggest that this place needs it's own article. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's definitely a town, and appears to be a significant and historic one at that. There's no such thing as a "non-notable" town/village/population center. A town of this size in the US or UK would never make it to AfD. Is this a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -WP:GEOLAND --User:Vigyani 08:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm now certain that the town exists, but I still can't find any reliable sources. If I find a census from India that shows how much population this town has to at least give it a source, then I'll withdraw the nomination. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the pin code, finding many more non-WP sites showing the town by removing the "Bhaika" affectation. [11][12][13][14] There are frequently many Latin spellings of Hindi and other Indian language place names. Google Maps frequently has the less-used.--Oakshade (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

use this and update the article. User:Vigyani 08:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There we go! Withdrawing the nomination... Aerospeed (Talk) 12:23, 20 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 Odviously my research well doing WP:BEFORE was off - nothing showed up at all, although I was using Bing at the time.... Mdann52 (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manuela Arcuri[edit]

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

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

fails the relevant notability guidelines and appears to fail WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep and suggest withdrawal, no WP:BEFORE, easily passes WP:ENT and WP:GNG, over 15,500 news articles on Google News [15], the Italian version of the article [16] include significant secondary coverage from Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica, ANSA, Vanity Fair, Gazzetta dello Sport, Corriere del Mezzogiorno, GQ, TGCOM, Oggi, among others. She easily meets WP:ENT per significant roles in notable films such as Vicente Aranda's Mad Love and Pappi Corsicato's Black Holes, main roles in many TV-series (eg Carabinieri, L'onore e il rispetto, Il peccato e la vergogna), and as television presenter of notable programs such as the Sanremo Music Festival. Cavarrone 18:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Cavarrone, the subject is clearly notable both as a presenter, actress and model, especially when using google.it instead of English-only results. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:07, 18 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YOGA Venture[edit]

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

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

Company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources barely say more then mention the name of the company. Looking online I can't seem to find anything about the company that would meet the inclusion requirements. Bilby (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete looks like a blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Small yoga tourism company, barely a year old, which has received no significant coverage that I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 25 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home_Leisure_Direct[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTLINK This is just a collection of links that has no value to the reader or any encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not promotional nor is it a catalog of lists. Companies do not list their product catagories on this site therefore this paragraph should be removed. WP:PROMOTION. The claim of having the largest range of games room products on display in Europe WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:OC#OPINION. How has this statistic been verified? Please state your source. I say that this page has been created by the business owner therefore is a conflict of interests and fundamentally promotional in intent. Rightbackatya (talk) 13:16, 18 March 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 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - IMHO this reads more like promotional work than an encyclopedic article, That aside I can find absolutely nothing on Google News to suggest notability, Had there been sufficient (or any for that matter!) sources on GNews I probably would've Kept but there we go, No evidence of notability fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of independent reliable sources. That's not surprising; it's a small company, less than 10 years old, with a total of two stores. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 25 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Rugby Union Club[edit]

Riverside Rugby Union Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

this team plays in the very amateur 4th division of Brisbane rugby union. Would have never produced any notable players LibStar (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, social footy club of no particular distinction, with negligible reliable sources. Might be worth a Redirect to Queensland Suburban Rugby Union as a vaguely plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:31, 21 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fitness culture[edit]

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

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

No indication, why the topic is encyclopedic. Seems to be more focused on personal view. Ireneshih (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy move to DraftNot sure this is an option but the title does suggest a broader appeal than just a personal view. It may be a synthesis, I suspect it is copied from somewhere, and the formatting is too far removed from standard - at the very least it needs a lot of work before it has a place in article space.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a Draft that was never submitted to review not to mention a further copy on User:Fitnessculture. This article should be deleted.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Keep Still needs a lot of work but some editing has taken it beyond the draft versions.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This article has many sources for the existence of "fitness culture". It's certainly a subject that is talked about in various publications about it in journals, books, and other forms of media. The article just needs to be fixed up. Iamozy (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely keep After some editing, this article is much easier to read. "Fitness culture" is a notable subject, and I'm surprised there isn't already a Wikipedia article about it. -Iamozy (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems like good rationale and sources for this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:12, 19 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. G11: the following quote is sufficient evidence "The company was built to help content owner and content creator to protect and monetize there content in easy professional way with our team help. " That was in the first version and all subsequent revisions. The rest of the article is designed to support that purpose. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WatanNetwork[edit]

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

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

Weakly sourced (e.g., YouTubes, blog, WP itself) promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 18 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. consensus is clear after relisting DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impulcity[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage is mainly routine and/or local notices of early investment and product announcement--do not help with CORPDEPTH--and a three-sentence mention on the Today show. Logical Cowboy (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article do not fails WP:CORPDEPTH, before proposing an article for deletion, you should really make some researches. May I add [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. Those are not investment and product announcement, those are real news website about the App and corporation. May I add that the app is based in Cincinnati, that's why all the news are about that. The article clearly pass WP:CORPDEPTH. --Karlhard (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Karlhard, don't you think you should declare your COI? The extent of your promotional editing is truly massive. Here are some of the warnings you deleted from your talk page. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Cowbow, please let me learn how to edit articles, PLEASE. I did not get paid ANYWHERE for those articles, I deleted the messages from my talk page because I don't know who are them and I was afraid that my reputation could get down, I know that the history of deletion keep registered. but I declare I DID NOT GET PAID FOR THOSE ARTICLES. Now, the discussion is for Bikini Luxe, an article I researched and created, everyone who creates an article SHOULD declare COI? However, you may know that I do not need money (and for editing Wikipedia Articles), should I laugh? I deleted the proposed deletion because they are pointless to me. Thanks for giving me such a hard time learning on Wikipedia, you can delete all articles if you want, also delete my talk page and why not the user? Good evening. --Karlhard (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mostly local coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are stating that local coverage does not make it local? WP:BRANCH please, make some research. Karlhard (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; today show bit is the only claim of significance and that's only a passing mention. Definitely falls short of CORPDEPTH. Nikthestunned 16:46, 23 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 05:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bijoux 22[edit]

Bijoux 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Logical Cowboy (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Found passing mentions in billboard (per article), Complex & ThisisRnB, (which may or may not be reliable) but that's all I could find and all seem pretty incidental. Nikthestunned 16:53, 23 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 merge to Curtin University. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curtin Student Guild[edit]

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

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

I don't find much coverage suggesting notability in general or under the organization guidelines. I wouldn't ordinarily expect a university's student association to acquire note outside of and independently of the school. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The guild is important enough to needs its elections to be run by the state government: http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/elections/union/elections/elect_details.php?org_id=9. There also seem to be several stories in newpapers.see https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Curtin+Student+Guild%22+-wikipedia&num=50&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=TyoAVf_SLpfc8AXrroCACg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=1472&bih=751 So it looks as if the coverage is there, so we should Keep the page. (PS the news link from the toolbox on the Wikipedia template does not lead to as many news stories as the link I supplied) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact that responsibility for operating student organization elections at state-run schools is delegated to the state's election board is indicative of those organizations' respective notability. As for the news search, I believe you've demonstrated the opposite of what you intended to. There are only 12 hits, and most of those are in passing: "About a dozen police officers attended the Stop Islamophobia rally, organised by Curtin Student Guild’s Miranda Wood ...", for example, isn't substantial coverage. If anything, it's borderline. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to Curtin University. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to meet WP:N for a standalone article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - its as much whether the precedent is there - other universities (it is not a school) in Australia have articles about their student guilds - see the template at the base of the article - it is a valid point of australian political history that student unions are the basis for the careers of a lot of australian politicians - if anything the article is suffering from recentism and lack of adequate historical background.

Western Australian Institute of Technology (usually abbreviated to W.A.I.T) is the previous university name - then try student guild (http://trove.nla.gov.au/book/result?q=wait+student+guild), (http://trove.nla.gov.au/article/result?q=wait+student+guild) - adequate coverage not used by article editors.... satusuro 23:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge Some information useful/sourced enough here to keep. Definitely not sourced enough for a standalone article for an unknown club. Jcmcc450 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The current state of how the Curtin University article presents an extract content, but has a link to the main article is fine. So Selective Merge and Keep --CopyvioAndSoWhat (talk) 00:04, 25 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 Bucket. Nakon 05:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bucket (unit)[edit]

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

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I merged the contents of this article to a mention at Bucket (disambiguation), which is sufficient for encyclopedic purposes. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: But I do not think squeezing a Cardarelli (mis)factoid into a disambiguation page is the right way to go either. The problem is not that this stubette article is not noteworthy (though in fact it is not), the problem is that anything Cardarelli's book says should be mistrusted. It is not evidence that a "Bucket" was ever a *unit of measurement* in the UK, in any real sense; at the very best it means that like all containers, a bucket can be used to count how many bucketfuls of manure (or whatever) you have put on the hydrangeas, and at least one bucket at at least one time mentioned in something that Cardarelli found somewhere, probably translated into French, might have had a capacity of 4 gallons. If this is true it should be added to the Bucket article, which currently asserts that a common capacity is "10 litres" (but this would be a rather small bucket.) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Edit Or rather, actually a 4-gallon bucket would be awkwardly large and difficult to carry if filled with water. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment looking for other sources online, I see other websites define 1 bucket the same as Cardarelli, however, those sources seem dubious themselves and may have just gotten the info from Cardarelli. Couldn't find any mentions in the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster. If we can't find a more reliable source I would recommend deleting the dab. Also, found other website that defined a bucket as much smaller than 4 gallons. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge It takes little time to confirm that the equivalence of 1 bucket being 4 gallons was fairly well established in metrology - see The Science of Measurement: A Historical Survey, for example. There are obviously alternatives to deletion such as merger with bucket which does not contain this fact and which we prefer per our editing policy. See also There's a Hole in My Bucket, which seems a good parody of these discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well that helps establish WP:V, but this still doesn't go past a dictionary definition and therefore does not pass WP:NOTDICT and so the article should be deleted per our editing policy, although I am ok merging the contents to bucket. Could you please explain your keep !vote, as you didn't provide any information as to how you thought this was covered extensively enough in independent reliable sources in order to go beyond a dictionary definition. The one source you did provide is nothing more than a definition itself, and it does not cover the term "bucket" extensively. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Bucket. It's verifiable (e.g. [31]), but does not appear to have received significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no such thing as a unit called a bucket and the well-intentioned effort to move the claim to Bucket (disambiguation) should be reversed. What reliable source discusses who defined a bucket as 4 gallons, and when and where that practice applied? There can be a brief mention at Bucket of any encyclopedic information. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cited list has "tuffet (bucket)", as though "bucket" was an alternative pronunciation, regional variant or whatever. But the "tuffet" version is also very obscure: it is not in tuffet, nor the SOED, nor the Imperial Lexicon. Here's a list which just includes "tuffet": https://archive.org/stream/cu31924003684226#page/n141/mode/2up ... it seems to me that including a table such as this in an article on the old binary (what is "octonary"?) units would be just fine, whereas extraction just one name, of double obscurity, and proclaiming it "a unit" is misleading to readers. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I was trying to do any cleanup work before nominating this article by including them in dabs or other articles where appropriate. However, it seems that what constitutes the "correct" type of cleanup for each term in still debate-able. That being said, I'm just going to go back to nominating these articles, and we can discuss dabs, merges, etc. on an individual basis and implement those changes as we go along. If someone else would like to attempt some type of cleanup before I nominate just let me know which articles from the list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit) you are going to cleanup and I will wait until your done to nominate it, otherwise I will continue to nominate in random order. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my possible snark above—my irritation with these pseudo-articles may have been showing. Thanks very much for your efforts in cleaning them up! Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, no offense was taken. :-) -War wizard90 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No convincing evidence of use of "bucket" as a unit other than in general terms as we'd use "teacupfull". If it had ever been a recognised unit, I trust the OED to have picked it up. Lacking that, delete. PamD 10:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and the dozens of other Caradarelli units we've already killed. PianoDan (talk) 13:33, 19 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 no consensus. Nakon 05:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harri Porten[edit]

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

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

Of of the four references, only one is marginally close to supporting notability (the interview at http://www.osnews.com/story/259 ). The rest are not applicable and I couldn't find others. His company may be. The Squish product may be, but the subject doesn't appear to be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 17:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 17:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 5 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. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Merle[edit]

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

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

No evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO: some uncredited bit roles in TV and films that may or may not be simply extras (e.g. Hippie Woman In Bookstore, College Party Girl, Woman Eating Muffin, etc.[32][33]). WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles, and Notability is not inherited, no matter how many background appearances in SNL, etc. Granted there are working actors with less roles, even uncredited, but it is far WP:TOOSOON to have an article on this person. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not appear to meet the notability criteria. Nakon 01:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-too soon if ever. (but awww, woman eating a muffin sounds like a important role lol) Wgolf (talk) 01:28, 21 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 05:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Jenkins Case[edit]

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

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

Article is a mix of WP:VICTIM and WP:CRIME. Unfortunate as always, it does not appear to meet criteria for a stand-alone article. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Horrific story, almost surprising that it did not get wider coverage, given the unusually sympathetic and horrific details. But although intensely covered statewide in Vermont both at the time and as legal proceedings against the murderers, it seems to have gotten little out-of-region coverage, and does not seem to have entered wider conversations about, say, stalking. Nor has it produced notable memorials to the victim, or inspired writers to produce TV or novel versions of event. So it fails WP:GNG. The article itself was created by a rookie editor, and would need a clean-up if kept. Willing to reconsider if someone turns up sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Whilst news like this is awful to hear IMHO we don't need every single article on someone who's died for whatever reason, This imho does fail WP:MEMORIAL so unfortunately I'll have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Davey2010 and E.M.Gregory. Agree horrific tragedy but a WP:BLP1E.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:55, 22 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. Nakon 05:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meiyang Chаng[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (note the non-Latin "a")

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

No indication of notability. Only source is the actor's blog and facebook page. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Searches may be wonky because one of the "a" in the title is not a normal Latin alphabet one, and would need to move if kept. Adding an alternate ((Find sources AFD)) for the correct title, and a note to the original above. No !vote because I see sources by news outlets but I am too uninitiated in Indian matters to judge their reliability. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - enough sources for a stub I'd say, article needs trimming. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Flat Out. May not be notable as only an actor. But if his career as a host and a singer is taken into account will easily clear WP:GNG. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:35, 19 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) 08:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Drive[edit]

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

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

Article is about a band sourced only to their web site. I can find no significant coverage about this band that would establish notability. Whpq (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 01:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing to be found but primary sources/websites and a lone review on a site that accepts user submissions doesn't cut it. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 19 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. Nakon 05:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orly Aviv[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG (the long list of links seems to show only her work, as far as I have checked it). The Banner talk 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the www.itsliquid.com and http://erev-rav.com/archives/23770 references satisfy our requirements for WP:GNG. Many other links are her work, but it does not matter that there are other links too. Checking that there are suitable sources is part of the AFC process. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Of the 30 references in the article, the two cited by Graeme Bartlett and one or two others look like potential RS. That is probably enough for a keep, but the article could really stand to be cleaned off all the non-reliable sources and trimmed to what is actually verifiable form the RS. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:23, 16 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) Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rantic[edit]

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

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

Blatant PR for a "company" that does not even exist. The primary editor(s) has/have attempted to create this and several similar articles on numerous occasions, apparently succeeding this time on the "strength" of the sources. However, a quick check thereof shows:

1. Alexa – ranking claims #54,496 on 23 December 2014; ranking on 10 March 2015 shows #246,358, dropping off the chart in October
2. NYT, blog by Nick Bilton – mentions swenzy.com, which no longer exists; does not mention Rantic
3. The Daily Dot – mentions SocialVEVO; does not mention Rantic
4. news.com.au – source says 4chan users "defaced the website for SocialVevo’s latest ruse, Rantic.com" (emphasis mine)
5. "ETC News" – two guys with a podcast
6. New York Media (nymag.com) – Notes that "Rantic itself doesn't actually exist, but is instead the work of the prolific pranksters behind another countdown hoax. Made up of people who go by the names Jacob Povolotski, Yasha Swag, Swenzy, and Joey B, the group is occasionally referred to as "SocialVEVO.'" (emphasis mine)

... and I stopped there. "Rantic itself doesn't actually exist" was enough to convince me that it should not have an encyclopedia article, either. Add its repeated use of "allege(d)" and a "reportedly", it becomes both a PROMO and a NOTNEWS vio. (Edit: updated edits by the main author[s] do not thus far alleviate the issues.) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions per the September 2014 deletion of the closely related FoxWeekly. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the gawker, Washington post, the daily dot, the guardian articles which is the most up to date and talks about Rantic and what the business does. The New York mag article is a outdated one. SocialVEVO and Swenzy are former names and is reported in the up to date latest articles that I listed above. 98.249.241.179 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only way this article can survive even under those parameters is if the existence of the "company" and what it does as a "company" is written and cited to pass GNG, otherwise it also fails INHERITORG by standing on its own PR for itself. All evidence of its aggrandizement would have to be removed. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the nomination statement rather contradicts itself saying both that the article is promoting a company and that the company doesn't exist. Um, that isn't possible - make up your mind as to your argument before making one... As to notability, the company (or fake company) has been covered by numerous reliable sources (no one would debate this, I'd think). Why it attracted such attention is pretty irrelevant - coverage, not importance, conveys notability. Let's say the company is really the work of prolific hoaxsters (seems to be RS consensus). So what? Then it is a notable hoax instead of a notable company. Essentially this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. The only real question is what to name the article - any of the various names used for the hoax should suffice, I'd think, but regardless that is not a question for AfD. Pinging @Kikichugirl: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that a legitimate proposal based on encyclopedic policy would be met with the assumption of good faith. Thank you. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about bad faith? I'm sure your nomination is in good faith, but that doesn't mean I can't critique it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, thank you. Your critique seemed aimed at the nom rather than the subject. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve I may have seen this AfD coming, but Rantic if I'm not wrong is a hoax company - so yes, it exists but it doesn't at the same time, if you get what I mean. Essentially, that (the hoax) is what Rantic is notable for. Whether or not this article has false claims is another story, but AfD isn't cleanup, and it's a pretty well-sourced article. — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 00:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would add only that you're quite right, it's very well-sourced, which is probably why it's in article space to begin with. Any rewrite would need to be massive in scope largely because, in my view (and I'm not alone), there's a massive difference between a hoax and a self-serving publicity stunt. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have severe doubts about that article being "well-sourced". Most of those sources were added by an IP editor who is associated with Rantic and earlier tried to pass off a Rantic/SocialVEVO-affiliate faux news site as a reliable source, and that editor is prone to misrepresenting the sources and introducing subtle untruths. The article sure looks well-sourced, but I wouldn't trust a single claim in that article without personally having looked up the reference cited for that claim, and if it's quoting someone associated with Rantic, it's probably quoting lies. Huon (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-on. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If it doesn't exist legitimately, It doesn't get an article. –Davey2010^Talk 15:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, you could send the Cottingley Fairies to AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, nice discussion in multiple sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets GNG, we are okay to cover notable hoaxes that third-party sources cover, even if they're on Wikipedia (eg: this) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 21 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 no consensus. After reviewing the two weeks of an AFD, as well as three previous AFDs, I find that there is still no consensus for the removal of this article. The sources provided tend to give weight to the article subject's notability WRT the general notability guidelines. I will not be able to definitively say keep or delete in this instance, but after review, the argument for deletion is less significant that inclusion. Nakon 05:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G. Edward Griffin[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)).

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an unusual AfD. It was sparked because careful consideration of what superficially seems to be a lot of sources turned up (surprisingly) nothing that could be used to establish notability according to the rules of WP:BIO nor WP:GNG in light of the self-promotion of the subject and his fellow far-right believers. Apologies for the length, but there is a lot to consider here. I will collapse the reasons below for you to read.

jps (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Fringe" people may indeed be notable, and it is fairly clear that is the case at hand. Mentioned in massive numbers of reliable sources. Mentioned in a substantial number of books (including books which do not agree with him). Viewed over 16K times in past 90 days. In short: the BLP gets a substantial number of views, indicating that readers find him notable. Absent a sound and compelling reason for deletion, the default is "keep". Note 3rd AfD was a tad snowy Keep (as sources were added in abundance). 2nd AfD was closed as "delete" on the specific grounds of failing RS - though the !votes did not actually appear to support that close. 1st AfD was a tad snowy as Keep. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned, perhaps, but only in passing. The reliable sources are generally discussing Creature from Jekyll Island, and thus far the article's advocates have struggled to find anything in a reliable source that rises above the level of a namecheck. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That book does not have an article - and is, in fact, a redirect to this BLP. It is, moreover, noted in a large number of books including

The Fourth Branch: The Federal Reserve's Unlikely Rise to Power and Influence By Bernard Shull; Praeger, 2005. 272 pages inter alia. If you aver that the book is notable, then that should be the title here - and no reason for deletion? On the other hand, many people who are primarily noted for a single book do have biographies, so I do not find that a strong argument for deletion. I would also point out that the nominator thinking he or she must address every comment here is not all that utile - the goals of the encyclopedia include serving readers. Collect (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And the book is clearly notable, and the primary focus of critical commentary. The author, not so much. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until the time that we use reader metrics to determine what is or is not notable, I don't think we can rely on that as a convincing argument for keeping an article. WP:ENC is what we are, not clickbait. jps (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Currently, no reliable sources are provided to indicate notability. I could be convinced otherwise if such sources are provided and discussed here, but I currently don't see sources in the article that really establish notability outside of the fringe realm, or reliable sources indicating notability as a conspiracy theorist, crackpot, or other fringe titles either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that at the time of this posting, I still haven't seen sources provided that establish notability for Griffin specifically and what exactly is notable from reliable sources. That can change as I've stated, but I've only seen people claiming WP:GNG but not demonstrating what actually is notable. I'm not seeing anything stand out yet, so it looks like a clear delete without that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the 4th and 5th, then delete on 6th, restore, then delete again on the 7th 10 fringy facts from 10 different fringy sources are mathematically the same as 10 facts from one long in depth interview. His Media Matters profile is extensive, I have promoted it to the lede so more people can see it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the profile is little more than a collection of quotes. That's nothing to base an article on. Have our notability standards really sunk so low as to say any person with a media matters page is BLP-worthy? jps (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Gertrude Stein edited Wikipedia she would say: A reliable source, is a reliable source, is a reliable source. It is a collection of quotes and statements about his beliefs. The article is heavy on his beliefs and less on biographical details about his parents and wife and children, but still article worthy. I believe you need minimally 10 good facts about a person to have a Wikipedia worthy stub. This passes my 10 fact rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK< so I have been namechecked on BBC Radio 4, in the Times Educational Supplement and The Guardian, featured in interviews on BBC Radio Berkshire, described by the BBC Radio 4 PM programme as one of their most frequent correspondents and appeared on air on Radio 4. Where's my article? Guy (Help!) 23:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you appeared there as an author or filmmaker, and in each interview you revealed some facts about your life or your beliefs, and we could join together 10 facts, we would have an argument to have a stub about you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources cannot establish notability. Statements made by Griffin in an interview are not secondary RS references. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is an interview not a secondary source that determines notability? Can you point me to that Wikipedia rule. An interview is under editorial control where a primary document is not. The interviewer chooses notable people to interview. The interviewer chooses the questions. They choose how much to air or to print. How is that not editorial control? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are sources which discuss his book The Creature from Jekyll Island, the reliable few among which are less than complimentary, but not one single substantial source has been presented about the man himself, despite an extended debate. Unsurprisingly, as a largely self-published author, Truther, chemtrailer, AIDS denialist, Ark literalist, antivaxer, cancer quackery advocate and proponent of non-standard interpretations of US fiscal and foreign policy, the mainstream media simply ignores him. There are a few articles in whihc people take pot shots at the likes of Glenn Beck for giving him airtime, but there is nothing about Griffin himself, and in cases of controversial people there is a profound danger in being the first mainstream source to even attempt a biographical article. The content on Jekyll Island should be split out and moved back to the present redirect. Richard, at least one previous debate concluded in delete, this is not a shoo-in by any means. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Think I agree with Guy. Really hard to see anything that would constitute direct coverage in RS's. NickCT (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this AfD is the most ridiculous request EVER. Atsme☯^Consult 02:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - multiple RS cite his work and he is a popular lecturer, and has been interviewed numerous times by leading television news programs and on radio:
  • 3x Pulitzer winning editor at the NYTimes, David Barstow advised: "You need to know who Edward Griffin is, and how his book The Creature from Jekyll Island plays into this."[34] I would think if the NYTimes is recommending closer attention, WP should consider that notable.
  • Book reviewer, Michael J. Ross: "In the United States, the central figure in this ongoing drama, is our central bank, the Federal Reserve, whose history, power, and effects are explored in G. Edward Griffin's fascinating book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve."
  • Argentinian author, Adrian Salbuchi: "In 1995, American investigator and author, G. Edward Griffin, published what is clearly the most authoritative book on the 'FED' – as it is colloquially called in banking circles and by the mainstream media – 'The Creature from Jekyll Island'.
  • WSJ article [35] gives a nice balanced report like we'd expect from ethical journalism.
  • [36] Forbes - (ranked 75 US Alexa) - This battle continued up through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, whose rather dubious creation was nicely described in G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island.
  • [37] RT - (67 Russia, 382 Global) - Griffin also takes us back in time, and reminds us how the Fed even came to be – the money trust meeting in secret on Jekyll Island in order to draft a cartel agreement that would eventually be known as the "Federal Reserve Act.
  • [38] NPR.org - (129 US Alexa) - quote by Senator Bunning to Bernanke: You put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government's spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street. Your Fed has become the Creature from Jekyll Island. Thank you.
  • www.naturalnews.com/023345.html] Natural News - (2,023 US Alexa)
  • goldsilver.com/news/g-edward-griffin-coming-replacement-for-the-dollar-secrets-of-the-banking-system-gold-and-silver/] GoldSilver.com - (ranked 22,303 US Alexa). G. Edward Griffin is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. He is best known as the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, a critique of much modern economic theory and practice, specifically the Federal Reserve System.
  • www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/g-edward-griffin-saving-us-totalitarianism], Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa)
  • www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/34836/Anthony-Wile-G-Edward-Griffin-on-Globalism-Collectivism-and-Right-Principles/], The Daily Bell - (49,221 US Alexa)
  • www.financialsense.com/financial-sense-newshour/g-edward-griffin/dark-side-federal-reserve] Financial Sense - (ranked 49,730 US Alexa). "Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. One of his best-known books is his critical history of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve, The Creature from Jekyll Island.
  • www.corbettreport.com/interview-794-g-edward-griffin-unmasks-the-creature-from-jekyll-island/] Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa)
  • www.cchr.org.au/video/157-psychiatry-a-politics-with-g-edward-griffin] www.cchr.org.au/video/157-psychiatry-a-politics-with-g-edward-griffin] [39] [40] [41] www.globaldeflationnews.com/twenty-years-later-g-edward-griffin-is-still-taking-on-the-creature-from-jekyll-island/] www.corbettreport.com/interview-794-g-edward-griffin-unmasks-the-creature-from-jekyll-island/] www.theamericanview.com/exclusive-interview-g-edward-griffin/] www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/g-edward-griffin-saving-us-totalitarianism] www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/13/the-federal-reserve-is-a-cartel-g-edward-griffin/] goldsilver.com/news/g-edward-griffin-coming-replacement-for-the-dollar-secrets-of-the-banking-system-gold-and-silver/] [42] rt.com/shows/capital-account/edward-griffin-federal-reserve/] www.geoengineeringwatch.org/g-edward-griffin-talks-candidly-about-chemtrailssag/] [43] www.rechargebiomedical.com/tag/g-edward-griffin/] 2012.freedomfest.com/new-speakers/] conservativeread.com/how-are-socialism-communism-and-fascism-all-the-same/] Atsme☯^Consult 03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a bit sloppy the way this is currently presented considering most of these are not establishing notability of Griffin, but rather his book. A good many of these you already know from the article's talk page are considered a joke and are never really considered reliable (i.e. Natural News), so I find it funny you are padding your list with such sources even. Others from more legitimate sites are pretty unclear. What specific sources are you suggesting establish notability and what exactly is notable? At the very least, if this AFD can be used to establish what actually is notable about Griffin, if anything, that should hopefully help at the article if it remains. If he really is notable, it shouldn't be difficult to list the strongest sources that clearly establish notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considered a joke by whom? The FDA? Monsanto? The Federal Reserve? Griffin passes per WP:GNG so I'm not too concerned. I realize he's not notoriously famous as is Monsanto which resulted in the need for a separate article just for their lawsuits. Bravo to you for creating Monsanto_legal_cases. Hope you aren't plagued by some of their class action plaintiffs. Ugh. If you need help, I'd be happy to collaborate. The article needs some serious tweaking - maybe follow some of the suggestions you've made for Griffin - get some of the WEIGHT off, fix fluff and NPOV issues, etc. Hope you're not having to cite primary sources cause that will shave the article down considerably. It might even do better as a list rather than an article. Atsme☯^Consult 23:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By RSN countless times, and there's no need for the snark. You currently aren't demonstrating GNG in your post. Consensus is assessed by evidence not by simply yes or no votes, so that's why I was asking for what you considered specifically established notability for Griffin specifically rather than sort through the list of tangential or generally considered reliable sources. That's all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the diffs to substantiate your claims. Each RSN refers to the use of a RS as it applies to a particular statement made in a specific passage. It is not a blanket decision for the source. See WP:RSN, [44] and [45]. Hope that helps. Atsme☯^Consult 22:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been made aware that it's generally considered a junk source at RSN, [46] and I'm sure it's been brought up to you at the article talk page multiple times. If you're not familiar with its general unreliability due to lack of fact checking and pushing fringe theories, best ask at WP:FTN. Whenever it comes up as a source, it typically is rejected by the community due to being such a fringe source.

To get back to the actual topic at hand though, out of what you consider the best sources, what are they and what specifically is notable? You still haven't answered that. I'm still not seeing anything in what you presented that would establish consensus for notability or things to actually focus the article on if Griffin himself is truly notable. If notability truly is clear, you should have no problem just listing a few clear cases that establish notability and lead to the article being kept. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anyone tempted tot ake this laundry list of purported "sources" at face value should check the article talk page. They fall into three categories: passing mentions (namechecks only); unreliable sources (e.g. chemtrail conspiracy site); reliable sources discussing in the main only one of his books, Creature from Jekyll Island, one of the few that is not self-published. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unbelievable that this is even being proposed.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The article is poor written. The over all number of sources available are few with many of which being poor. But there's a fine line at which someone is notable and not notable via Wikipedia. It's a reasonable enough determination that at least Griffin's toe has crossed this line. This is an annoying enough determination, considering exuberant contributors such BLP's can attract, but this is would be the main basis that would shift my opinion to weak delete.The answer to the articles woes may be stripping it further.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly a fringe conspiracy theorist, but enough cover in mainstream sources for an article. Darx9url (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - GNG pass. One of the worst lead sentences of the BLP Rules Era has finally been changed, but the lead remains very very tendentious. A couple activists need to stand down and real Wikipedians need to step up to make this an NPOV biography. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with "... is an American author, lecturer, and filmmaker." I am not sure what you are saying. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite is referring to the RfC that was initiated a short time ago which changed the offending lead sentence to what it is now. It was not an easy task to accomplish. Unfortunately, the rest of the lead is still problematic because of its defamatory nature and questionable sources. I have tried repeatedly to correct the problems, but get reverted every time. These issues need to be resolved, but here we are now arguing over a notable author's notability. It's more of the same SQS in an effort to prevent this article from being improved and promoted to GA. Atsme☯^Consult 18:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Carrite means by activist editors standing down. Wikipedia does not have a problem with describing an advocate of chemtrails, the New World Order conspiracy theory, the Big Pharma conspiracy, 9/11 "Truth", AIDS denialism and many other crank ideas, as being an advocate of such ideas. You are well aware that everything he promotes if fringe and much of it is patent nonsense. You are well aware of the mainstream consensus on the ideas he promotes. Thus, you work tirelessly to remove the ideas he promotes form the lede, in order that it does not establish the context of his fringe advocacy. In this, you have failed to persuade, consistently, over many months. Griffin is a proponent of conspiracy theories and fringe nonsense. Most of it is self-published and entirely ignored by reliable independent sources. I'm still waiting for a single reliable independent biographical source to be introduced. David Icke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been extensively discussed in reliable sources, with numerous profiles that establish biographical details. I cannot find a single reliable independent source that substantiates any of the biographical data for Griffin - the only bio data that exists on any sites even close to reliable, is self-sourced PR resumes that are not independent at all. You might like to help with that some time. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those "questionable sources" are the only reliable sources that impart him with Wikipedia:Notability. If we remove the sources that use "fringe" or "conspiracy" we have nothing, and his entry has to be deleted. He is not known for anything else. It has been almost 35 years since the discovery of the AIDS virus and 45 years since laetrile was disproved. If you are still clinging to those beliefs you are "fringe". If you can't discard the old ones, at least get some new ones. www.verifiedfacts.org/ Here is a random conspiracy generator online] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Carrite. [Comment: I cannot help but think that the concern about Griffin's bio by editors who are regular defenders of GMO is not divorced from the fact that Griffin implicates Monsanto in nefarious activity in one of his recent documentaries.] petrarchan47tc 17:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was that from the random conspiracy generator? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far from random, but I can see how it would appear that way. One might find it interesting to note how many critics of biotech end up at this noticeboard. petrarchan47tc 19:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sufficient sources provided by others lay the matter to rest. Those of us who truly lack notability must be careful that we judge another's notability absent bias or agenda. Otherwise it fast becomes a case of placing so high a value on media attention that the term 'fringe' becomes defined by those most adept at marketing their definition. Scrutinized in this way, Patrick Henry would not have been 'notable' or worthy of a Wikipedia Article. Agree or disagree, fringe or mainstream, ideas printed, spoken and recognized by others as valid should be placed before the people for opportunity to formulate their own determinations of value. Cloudrising565 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Strong Keep WP:GNG is the relevant test for whether someone should have a WP entry. The fact that Griffin's on the fringe doesn't mean he's not notable. Per Collect's statement, he is clearly notable. Steeletrap (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As far as The Creature from Jekyll Island is concerned, I note that it has been praised by Forbes magazine contributors [47][48], cited as a factual source by an economics textbook published by Springer on the history of the Fed [49], and cited as a reference by an academic journal published by Wiley [50]. Griffin's expertise on the Federal Reserve satisfies notability criteria per WP:AUTHOR. -A1candidate 00:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Forbes blog contributors, not Forbes contributors. I haven't fact-checked the rest of your statement; however, at best, it justifies an article on the book, not the author. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes blog contributors are Forbes contributors, just not Forbes print contributors. They only appear in the online version, just as it is in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Blog is an online format, the word "blog" does not denote anything about reliability. That Forbes chose this writer to blog under their masthead is what makes him a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes blogger who commented on Jekyll Island is an investment fund manager with opinions about various topics related to finance. He is not a notable historian, economist, journalist, or fund manager and this blog piece is not RS for this article. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes blogger, Nathan Lewis, wrote the article about Greenspan wanting to end the Fed, and also commented about Griffin's book. Nathan Lewis is an author-economist-macro strategist, and writer of opinion pieces that have appeared in the Financial Times, Asian Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones Newswires, Worth, Daily Yomiuri, Asia Times, Pravda, Huffington Post, and numerous other print and online publications. I think we can safely say he is a reputable professional in the relative fields. I seriously doubt Forbes would accept anything less. [51]. (add original time for post - 23:00, March 12, 2015‎) and now my sig - --Atsme☯^Consult 21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good case for an article about the book. Where are the sources about its author? They have not been presented yet. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:Instead of repeatedly stating your opinion that the blog is RS, please respond to the reasons I presented for rejecting that source. Forbes carries many non-notable opinionated bloggers. The burden is on you for inclusion and if you can demonstrate that this blog is RS as to the history of the Federal Reserve, etc. it would go a long way to establishing Mr. Griffin's notability. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Forbes carries many non-notable opinionated bloggers" you should note that NOT having a Wikipedia article does not make you non-notable. The quote "conspiratorial, amateurish, and suspect" is by Edward Flaherty, who is also not notable by the Forbes standard that is being promulgated. He is quoted in the article with no countervailing opinion from Forbes.

• Weak Delete. The accurate (I mean, accurately cited, not accurate in fact) so far placed in the article which does not violate WP:FRINGE justifies WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The book appears to meet WP:BK, and if material in the present article belongs in an article about the book, one could make a case for renaming this article to The Creature from Jekyll Island, and clearing out statements not about the book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem with doing that, Arthur, is the fact he has authorized several popular books, and there are other aspects of his life that are interesting and belong in the article as biographical content. Atsme☯^Consult 13:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to meet notability guidelines. Nomination appears to stem from content issues which are better dealt with on the page itself. Artw (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Not exactly "content issues", unless you mean that the content which indicates notability is without reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the discussions here [52], and here [53] which have some of the more vocal delete proponents discussing content issues on the page. As for the sources not being sufficient to meet WP:GNG I don't really buy them and the longer they get the more desperate they seem, sorry. Artw (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The works of G. Edward Griffin are powerful inspiration in the perennial fight for liberty and freedom of choice. By deleting the article on Mr. Griffin, Wikipedia would become an accessory to the burgeoning forces of global tyranny that seek to enslave the world under perpetual debt. This must not be allowed to happen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lux Logos (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lux Logos (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources available here just aren't sufficient to support this fringe BLP, despite being numerous and superficially acceptable. As Guy says above, there is essentially no coverage in reliable sources that is about Griffin himself. The book does seem to be notable enough to support an article with this title as a redirect (the opposite of the current situation). In the interest of full disclosure, I think the existence of this article has been a clear net negative for the project. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (Not that my puny !vote has much chance of slaking the hurricane thus far...) Rename to The Creature from Jekyll Island - This is a fairly unusual case in which the book is far more notable than its author. (I mean, come on: who on the internet has not heard of that thing?) Pax 08:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the very fact that so much editing and discussion and edit-warring has occurred supports the notability of this topic. Is the solution to ignore his influence (minor and fringy as it is) by sweeping the article under the rug? No. We must write about him, following the 5P, which says "strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons." – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've been following the edits to this article for a few years with fascination (I guess you would call it lurking), but I couldn't bring myself to get involved probably because tensions run so high. Regarding the sources, it's true that the subject is definitely WP:FRINGE by Wikipedia standards but the preponderance of reliable sources are quite critical of him, giving him an interesting case of notability. Do we delete the article because the preponderance of independent secondary sources only mention him in passing but are critical of this BLP or do we keep it and just document what they say? Personally, I favor simply reflecting what they say about him and being honest with the reader. Oddexit (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, they are certainly critical of his work, but only mention him in passing. Do you know of a reliable independent biographical source? Guy (Help!) 11:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment: There are sources critical of his work no doubt, as well they should be, but far more sources are not because his particular style of writing sets him apart from what some in mainstream consider to be a "conspiracy theorist". For example, Rice University lists his book Creature on their list of suggested reading for one of their classes on finances. Several financial and alternative websites (some of which are fact checked or somehow regulated) have also written articles about him. A separate paragraph in a Forbes article is hardly passing mention as it relates to article content. Casey Research considers him to be among the Best of the Best in their presentation, Navigating The Politicized Economy www.caseyresearch.com/cm/2012-fall-summit-cd-set]. He has been interviewed numerous times on audio/video streaming sites, but none of those sources have been cited. He lectures around the world. I think many critics of Griffin's work have picked a few passages from his books, and have taken them out of context in an effort to sensationalize them for ratings, most of which has politically bias because of Griffin's views on freedom vs collectivism. Perhaps the latter explains part of the reason we see only passing mention in critical analyses of him and his books. Regardless of what perspective one chooses to see him, as editors we can only hope that all perspectives are being considered when writing his BLP, and that we are not inadvertently injecting our own POV when determining his notability. Atsme☯^Consult 14:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to Guy's question here. What reliable sources talk about Griffin? There might be some, but none have yet been produced. (For what it's worth, my views on "freedom vs collectivism" resemble Griffin's. As far as I can tell, none of my other views resemble Griffin's.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to his question before he asked it, Arthur - see the links above. Introductions or guest biographies would fall under the heading of independent biographical material so I've gathered a few more for your reading/listening/viewing pleasure: The Scott Horton Show has introduced and interviewed Griffin several times. scotthorton.org/interviews/2004/04/17/april-17-2004-g-edward-griffin/]; Peter Schiff interviewed him, and gave a short bio, www.schiffradio.com/september-2011/]. Here is another interview with a brief bio (#93) itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/american-monetary-association/id404990055?mt=2]. Another abbreviated bio, www.cph-books.com/g-edward-griffin.html]; www.filmpressplus.com/wp-content/uploads/dl_docs/AFFF-PressNotes.pdf] Page 10; guest biography; Sidebar note, you might also want to take a look at this Syllabus by the late Brian Stross professor, Dept. of Anthropology, UT - who recommended one of Griffin's books and several websites that have been dismissed as not reliable, [54]. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 23:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mathematically 10 facts from 10 sources are the same as 10 facts from 1 source. The argument is that this biography is made from facts cobbled together from multiple sources, and detractors are demanding that we have to have all the facts come from one in-depth source. There is no rule in Wikipedia that demands this, actually just the opposite, it demands multiple reliable sources to achieve notability. A single in-depth interview on the front page of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal would not satisfy WP:notability if that is all that existed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:, in answer to your question about reliable independent biographical sources, I often use LexisNexis, JSTOR, Worldcat, and other common databases to search for subject notability and information. It saves time and effort in "googling" or going to the library. I typed the name "G. Edward Griffin" in LexisNexis just now and got 116 hits. The database then usefully broke down the hits into categories. There were 62 newspaper articles, 35 newswire statements, 9 from the trade press, 7 from web-based publications, 5 from other technical publications, 2 magazine articles, and an assortment of other "publications" like blogs that probably don't meet Wikipedia's sourcing criteria. In the case of JSTOR, two peer-reviewed journal articles discussed his books. In both databases, I would have to sit down and spend hours reading through all of these to answer your question thoroughly. That said, I can understand @Atsme: and his frustration. There were several times where I spent literally days researching something carefully, agonizing over the wording, and trying to make them policy compliant before editing the articles only to see my hard work quickly deleted with dismissive tags in the subject headers and without even the slightest discussion on the talk pages before action. This is the nature of Wikipedia, unfortunately. That's why it's not worth getting too invested in your hard work here. Wikipedia is just supposed to be a friendly, collaborative hobby, although it's still disappointing to experience when you try to go by the book and be constructive. C'est la vie. Oddexit (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen keeps, there was also a lot of discussion and nothing after your relisting, User:Coffee this wanted closing as clear keep not relisting Govindaharihari (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per the notice at the top of this page, we don't determine this by vote counting, but by WP:CONSENSUS. The means someone needs to establish what actually is notable about the subject with reliable sources. There's a lot of people just saying Griffin appears to meet general notability without specifying clearly how, which essentially can just become like saying nothing at all when determining consensus. Ideally if consensus can be reached of if some things are notable about Griffin, that would help structure the article as well, so there really needs to be consensus here rather than just voting. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Govindaharihari. If there is any doubt about Griffin's notability, a quick review of WP:AUTHOR No. 3, should eliminate it - (my bold) 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. As other editors have noted above, he easily fits the requirements as the author of two well-known works - The Creature From Jekyll Island and World Without Cancer. At the very least, it is dismissive of the long-standing community consensus which elected to KEEP this article in 3 prior AfD requests. The WSJ, Forbes, book reviews by Michael J. Ross, recommended reading list for several universities courses, NPR, RT, Financial Sense, Corbett Report (not the comedy), in the keynote address of Australian Attorney General [55], Amazon Best Seller, Money & Monetary www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Money-Monetary-Policy/zgbs/books/2598], www.anticancerinfo.co.uk/cancer_prevention.html], www.texasinsider.org/kinky-friedman-g-edward-griffin-and-michael-badnairk-headline/], www.jasonhartman.com/cw-291-the-economic-and-political-landscape-with-g-edward-griffin/].

• Keep For people who write books, the notability usually depends on the amount of notice given the books. This is similar in all creative fields. For example, works discussing Rodin's sculpture is evidence that he is notable as a sculptor. He meets WP:AUTHOR as well as the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quite simply, I can't fathom the argument for deletion. So we have here someone who's noted, in multiple reliable sources, for promoting various conspiracy theories or other fringe theories; how could that be argued not to be notable? That nobody considers the theories legitimate is besides the point; considerable effort has been expended in the literature towards arguing for their illegitimacy. This is, after all, an article about the person, not the theories. Accordingly, the notability of the theories is moot. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 01:22, 23 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. Swarm ^T 21:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Grand Prix[edit]

2014 Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Likely this is meant to cover the same as 2014 PSL Grand Prix Conference, but the roster is a duplicate of info at Petron Blaze Spikers. There is nothing here to merge or salvage. Furthermore, it has a horrible ambiguous title. P 1 9 9  ✉ 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What's that for a title? Whatever, nom. has it on point. Roster is already in a place so no need to have it again, let alone a standout article. Kante4 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to 2014 Philippine Super Liga Grand Prix (Petron Blaze Spikers) on March 20. There is still no need for this article since it is covered in Petron Blaze Spikers, so this is added to the nomination for deletion. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A10 and tagged as such. I'm surprised this wasn't done earlier. Besides, from the original title, what did "2014 Grand Prix" mean? A Formula One Grand Prix in 2014? A figure skating event in 2014? A hopelessly vague title with unencyclopedic content, a fact which did not change even after the article was moved. If only A10 had the option of adding more than one article to the "articles being duplicated" field. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:05, 22 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) –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for listing under "Australia" - Having mouse issues. –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Earth (US)[edit]

Friends of the Earth (US) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

advertising and promo The Banner talk 23:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – contains only affiliated sources. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seriously? There are lots of sources covering this organization, e.g. from just the first page of Google Books results: Robert Lamb's Promising the Earth, Mother Jones, Thomas Wellock's Critical Masses, Clare Saunders Environmental Networks and Social Movement Theory, Social History of the United States, Historical Dictionary of the Green Movement. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not discussing their notability. I believe that. But this article is one big advertisement beyond rescue. WP:TNT is the best option here. The Banner talk 10:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and indef ban for the malicious nomination by The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). –Be..anyone (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, my concerns are genuine mr. Be..anyone. And I take your stance towards me and towards the encyclopaedia as an affront. Plain advertising is not in the best interest of an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 10:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Should we have an article about this organization? Yes. Should we have this as our article about this organization? Not sure, I'd have to take some time to comb through the sources and page history. Maybe there is something salvageable, but maybe it needs to be deleted and rewritten from scratch, using external sources. Oh, and Be...anyone, relax. I assess that The Banner means well here and is not being malicious. DS (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't even need to look, I know this organization is a slam-dunk GNG keep even without looking at Michig's list of sources — which easily suffice for a GNG pass. The piece is wholly self-sourced and that needs to be fixed — but that's an editing matter, not a notability matter. AfD is not for clean up. Have at it. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problems with you cleaning it up. But I think WP:TNT is appropriate here. The Banner talk 11:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is self-referenced fluff, and it's always been that way in spite of multiple issues clearly tagged for many years. The recent tidying up doesn't obscure that there are no neutral secondary sources in the article. If there are good sources, then I think it would be better to build a new article from scratch with only what can be supported by those sources rather than trying to add after the fact props to a big long advert. AndroidCat (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Regrettable Keep. The article is shit, and this is one organization I would just as soon disappeared, but it certainly has its fair share of press. Pax 07:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Concerns about promotional tone, sourcing, etc. can be addressed by copy editing the article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and edit per Northamerica1000. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite. The resources are really bad (90%) but the organization is notable.--Mingo 08:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad1989 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. JodyB _talk 12:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles Nest Cafeteria[edit]

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

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

Non-notable cafeteria, fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage from reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 03:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nonsense - I see Yelp and the like listing am Eagles Nest Cafe on Chestnut hill, so it exists at least, but I suspect the actual eagle's nests and other exotic claims to game are made up. Artw (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Do we really need pages for every single cafeteria like this? Wgolf (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:N per a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Absolutely no indication of notability in the article or in my searches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per User:Wgolf Himanshugarg06 (talk) 15:43, 18 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 no consensus. Nakon 05:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sucka Free (mixtape)[edit]

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

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

Taking a look at NALBUMS and NSONG, this article does not appear to meet any of the criteria. Onel5969 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per these: [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] - they're only passing mentions but mixtapes don't get much (if any) any news coverage anyway, So mentioning the mixtape's better than saying nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 18 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. Deleted by User:Just Chilling. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus ruude[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:MUSIC, no/very little coverage in reliable sources, and there is no indication of the subject meeting any WP:MUSIC criteria. Esquivalience ^t 02:46, 18 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. Closing early as per the sources found by Margin1522 & Northamerica1000 (Thanks guys), Seeing no point to leaving this open any longer (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beck Group[edit]

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

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

I don't know what to do with this article. It has coverage that may or may not be significant, from sources that may or may not be reliable, and those sources also may or may not be independent. There are currently no sources in the article to even speak of. I have considered incubation but I don't think it is a good idea. Honestly, this article is probably inadequate to keep as an article because of the previously mentioned notability issues. Furthermore, it reads like an advertisement and Wikipedia has no tolerance for such articles. Too many peacock words. I advocate deletion. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture -related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – From the projects in the article you can tell that this is a major general contractor that should have a lot of coverage. Here are some sources.
• [66] How Peter Beck helped create a more efficient way to design and construct buildings - Smart Business Magazine
• [67] The Beck Group | BIM Case Study | Autodesk
• [68] Architecture review: First Baptist of Dallas builds a $130 million corporate behemoth | Dallas Morning News
• [69] New CEO runs The Beck Group in lockstep with predecessor | Dallas Morning News
• [70] Georgia Tech College of Architecture
• [71] 2014 HCD Corporate Rankings: Top Construction Firms
• [72] Ten Green Buildings You Should Know
• [73] Firm Profile: The Beck Group - EcoBuilding Pulse

This is plenty of material to write an article with. I'm also wondering what the peacock words were. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Additional source examples include:

• BIM Handbook. pp. 557-558.
• Architecture: Celebrating the Past, Designing the Future. p. 173
• Top Workplaces: Beck Group cited for fostering innovation. Tampa Bay Times.
• How Peter Beck helped create a more efficient way to design and construct buildings. Smart Business.
• Dallas: reflections & visions. Greater Dallas Chamber. pp. 160-161.

– Importantly, please see also section D of WP:BEFORE, and note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing within articles. Rather, notability is based upon the availability, reliability and depth of coverage of sources. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. AfD is not clean-up. - Dravecky (talk) 10:24, 18 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. Willing to userfy upon request. Nakon 05:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aamgonder[edit]

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

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

I was unable to find any proof at all that this place exists. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No Google Maps results + all Google results are mirrors = Probably a hoax or at best, unverifiable. Everymorning talk 01:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy – Another village name with transliteration issues. Here is a picture of Lal Satya Pratap Singh, the gentleman who was mentioned in the first line of the first version. He is from Amgonder Shankergarh Allahabad. Here is a report on the "Moulding characteristics of Amgonder sand". So the place most likely exists (not a hoax). I would suggest userfying it and asking for the name of the village in the original script (Devanagari?), plus the coordinates and some reference to prove that it exists. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Userfy per Margin1522, until verifiability problems will be eventually solved. Cavarrone 21:42, 18 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.