< 19 March	21 March >

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 George Gurdjieff#First car accident, writing and visits to America. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'[edit]

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

Article is unsourced and tagged as such for at least six years. Recently added sources fail WP:RS and or are promotional. Article fails WP:V and WP:CITE. No evidence of notability. Article is likely a form of soft SPAM. Article has been the recent object of an edit war with one editor ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and the aforementioned guidelines and policies. Suggest Redirect to the author's article page.

Note: The author is notable, however notability is not inherited. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I do not know enough about the topic area to opine on whether the subject (a book) actually is notable or not. However, I can say that the article gives the reader no indication as to why the book might be notable. As it currently stands, the article is nothing but a summary of the contents of the book. What is needed is a section on the book's reception in the real world. Are there any reviews of the book? (if so, what do they say about it) Has it won any awards? (which awards and why were they awarded?) Is the book considered influential (and if so, by whom?) Is it on a university level curriculum? (if so which schools?). That is the sort of information that the article needs to mention in order to properly establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I can't guess either. I merely had it on watch as interesting at some point in the past when I saw the contents being removed simply because no one had stepped up to look into sourcing. I see two directions for salvage: (1) Establishing notability as a book (2) Moving some subset of the content, along with independent sources into a section of the author's bio. But I don't see this a 24 hour project, more like 24 days. If it would help my rule-bound co-editors, I'm happy enough to move the article and its history into a user subpage, and I can work on it from there, and link the move work at the bio article talk page if anyone else wants to help. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. At least a quick web search found a number of resources that reference the book, listed hereTalk:Life_Is_Real_Only_Then,_When_'I_Am'#Contested_deletion Tom Ruen (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. [1] In the Course of Performance: Studies in the World of Musical Improvisation, p.165.
2. [2], Journal for the Academic Study of Religion, Vol 27, No 3 (2014), The Value of E. J. Gold: Unearthing the Real Mr. G.
3. [3] A Gurdjieff Genealogy: Tracing the Manifold Ways the Gurdjieff Teaching Has Travelled
4. [4] Channelling the Creative: Keith Jarrett’s Spiritual Beliefs Through a Gurdjieffian Lens Johanna Petsche
5. [5] Journal for the Academic Study of Religion, Vol 27, No 3 (2014), Fasting in Christianity and Gurdjieff, Journal for the Academic Study of Religion, Vol 27, No 3 (2014) Situating G. I. Gurdjieff’s Meetings With Remarkable Men
6. [6] Gurdjieff and Twentieth Century Culture Dr. Levan Khetaguri Professor and Director of Arts Research Institute of Ilia State University
7. [7] Situating G. I. Gurdjieff’s Meetings With Remarkable Men
8. [8] The Reality of Being: The Fourth Way of Gurdjieff, By Jeanne De Salzmann
9. [9], Without Benefit of Clergy, By Frank R. Sinclair
10. [10] J.G.Bennett‟s Interpretation of the Teachings of G.I.Gurdjieff a study of transmission in the fourth way, Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD University of Lancaster February 1995
11. [11]The Enneagram in the Writings of Gurdjieff By Richard J. Defouw
12. [12] Reich and Gurdjieff, By David M. Brahinsky

~~Userfication seems a reasonable suggestion, although I would add the caveat that if/when the time comes, the article should be sent to AfC for approval before being restored to the mainspace.~~ -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the meantime we can redirect the current article page to the author's page pending approval by AfC of any revised article.~~ -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find anything that rings the notability bell. The sources cited above appear to be some combination of affiliated, fringe, and or trivial, They generally fail RS. I stand by my recomendation as nom that the article be deleted and redirected to the author's page. Any merging of content should only be conducted if the content is backed by properly cited RS sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page and add the minimal independently sourced content to either the main article on the author or perhaps an All and Everything trilogy article if that is proven to be either notable in and of itself or if it is decided to merge the other two articles on books of the trilogy into one article. But, having used the links to the various searches for the topic above, I don't see anything in them to indicate that this particular book is itself separately notable. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect; when a controversial or WP:FRINGEy topic lacks coverage by independent sources, we can't maintain neutral content. bobrayner (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George_Gurdjieff#First_car_accident.2C_writing_and_visits_to_America. As of right now there is no page on the trilogy and if it's ever proven that the trilogy is notable enough for an entry, this can always be changed to redirect there. That said, I can't find anything to show that this specific book ultimately passes notability guidelines. It exists and it is an official part of the trilogy, but notability is not automatically granted by a book's existence (WP:ITEXISTS) or by the potential notability for the series or the notability of the author (WP:NOTINHERITED). This is a fairly common issue with trilogies in general and with fringe works in specific. Most times when fringe works receive coverage it's almost always in places that Wikipedia does not consider to be reliable. I know that reliable sources usually translates to "mainstream" (at least in comparison to the topic at hand) and that mainstream sources tend to ignore works like this. However at the same time Wikipedia still requires those reliable sources and this site cannot be expected to help give exposure to something that has at this time not received coverage in RS. Until a page on the trilogy comes about, I think that the best option here would be to redirect to the specific section highlighted above, since it does mention this work and the trilogy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - I found three scholarly texts—two that cite the book, and one which makes a passing reference to it. There are other books that briefly mention the book, such as "Life+Is+Real+Only+Then,+When+'I+Am'" this one. Otherwise, the subject does not seem to meet any of the five criteria of WP:NBOOK, and only would meet WP:GNG if we counted the many trivial mentions.- Mr X 19:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - I agree. There's not enough sourcing here to merit this page's existence but a summarized version of this content might be relevant to the author's page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted entirely non notable, no sources couldn't find any RS on the book. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah, no WP:RS has been able to establish notability. It should be deleted. Full stop, them's the rules.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:06, 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 speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 01:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Thomas Strosberg[edit]

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

Nothing unusual about Strosberg, he's just a typical successful Canadian lawyer. None of the articles cited are about Strosberg himself. This article seems to be an ad for him. mikeman67 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - based on the comments by the editors below, and additional sources that were highlighted, I'm withdrawing the nomination. I think the page badly needs a cleanup still. Part of my reasoning was that the page creator has a history of creating advert-like pages for Canadian lawyers, but on further review I think Strosberg meets the notability guidelines. I see someone removed the WP:Peacock tag, which I think was premature, since there's still lines like this on the page, without citation: "Strosberg has been partners with some of the most accomplished lawyers in Canada" and "Strosberg's work as a civil litigator has been widely recognized in the form of honorary degrees and medals." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeman67 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The National Post has described him as "one of the best known civil litigators in Canada" [13] and there is clearly enough RS coverage of him to meet WP:BIO. This includes, but is not limited to, the following sources: [14] [15] [16] Everymorning talk 21:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good sources, definitely notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily meets WP:BASIC. Two more sources that mention this lawyer: [17][18]. Notability is not based on how special the subject is: it is based on coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Esquivalience ^t 23:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Upon a source review, the subject passes WP:BASIC. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchel P. Goldman[edit]

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

appears non-notable Tone of article is also promotional, and article was created by Morning277. Mdann52 (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability because of extensive publications. But WP:TNT for sure. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. He probably meets WP:PROF#C1 (not through quantity of pubs but through high citation counts) but the pay-for-play issue makes me disinclined to let him get any amount of promotion for his dollars. Better just to delete it and wait until someone without a conflict of interest cares enough to create a properly neutral article. (Or blow it up again, if he tries to promote himself this way again.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix: The subject's publications have been cited 9,375 times, with an h-index of 55 (i.e. 55 of the subject's publications have been cited over 55 times): which clearly shows that the subject has made a significant impact in his field, thus it meets WP:NACADEMICS#1. I don't see any very major issues in the article (not much promotional content): no need to delete and start over again (see WP:BEFORE § c1). The article has since (after the block of Morning277 for long-term abuse and sockpuppetry) been substantially edited by non-affiliated editors to remove the promotional content. Esquivalience ^t 01:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Horrific article with vastly inadequate and promotional sourcing (an Amazon author profile? Really?) Goldman meets WP:ACADEMIC and we should have an article on him, but this is irredeemable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took out almost all of the assertions that I couldn't attribute to independent sources. There are still two self-published references (one to his DOB and another to his medical practice), but those can be easily removed as well. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been cleaned up and the subject is notable enough. Self-published sources for trivial biographical information are fine. I agree it's unfortunate (and a systemic bias issue) that notable people who self-promote are the ones who end up with articles in topics with patchy coverage. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:33, 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 Delete. After three previous no-consensus discussions, we finally have consensus. No valid arguments presented to keep. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Asian people[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely unnecessary. This article will never be updated. List of British Pakistanis, British Indians and British Bangladeshis are enough. We don't need this article. $AHLM13$ talk 21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are already appropriate categories encompassing this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the 4th and 5th, then delete on 6th, restore, then delete again on the 7th clearly notable/non notable category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are already more specific lists, so this article is redundant. Move to Lists of British Asian people, and just list the constituent, specific lists. Pburka (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is redundant. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), I don't understand, why do you want the third one to be deleted? $AHLM13$ talk 14:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Same as above. There isn't any necessity to keep this article --115ash^→(☏) 15:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant to those articles mentioned above. –Davey2010^Talk 01:49, 26 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) 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Association Kuwait[edit]

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

Contested prod-a advertisement page it seems Wgolf (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like it's still being worked on; however, obvious issues including being poorly constructed. Also as far as I could find it does not have a corresponding Arabic or Bengali Wikipedia article, which would generally be a good indicator of notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could probably be speedied, as there's no indication of notability. Pax 08:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 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. Following WP:IAR & closing/tagging myself seeing as no one's turned up (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup Group A[edit]

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

Articles dedicated to specific groups of 2018 World Cup doesn't appear to make sense before the draw, let alone before qualification finishing. ibicdlcod (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no reason for this to exist three years before the event. – Pee Jay 19:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, No objections to it being created 2016/2017 but for now it's way too soon. –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON and article is simply a placeholder/shell now. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this a CSD A3? If not, still way too far in advance. Ham tech person 23:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The next World Cup is three years from now. WP:TOOSOON. – Michael (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Giant Snowman 08:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and also delete 2018 FIFA World Cup Group B, 2018 FIFA World Cup Group C, 2018 FIFA World Cup Group D, 2018 FIFA World Cup Group E, 2018 FIFA World Cup Group F, 2018 FIFA World Cup Group G and 2018 FIFA World Cup Group H for the same reason. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until Group A of the 2018 World Cup has been decided (and has received significant coverage): Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Group A of the 2018 World Cup hasn't been decided yet, and the article is just "TBA", so delete until the group has actually been decided and has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 14:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who knows if Russia will even hold onto the 2018 World Cup given all the war mongering lately by that backwards nation. Way too soon. Nfitz (talk) 23:49, 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. No objection to redir Nakon 02:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Story: Ferris Bueller's Day Off[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM, unable to find any sources discussing the topic outside a brief mention [19] ― Padenton |☎ 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I love Ferris Bueller, this fails notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎ 18:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Per being a sourcable topic, it can be written of and sourced there as it lacks the coverage to meet WP:NF for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to indicate this documentary is even significant enough for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 27 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. Obviously not notable -- snow close DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen G. Hall[edit]

Checkuser note: For the closing administrator: I have just blocked a large number of sockpuppets who have been directly involved in the editing of this article. I have noted below the comment added by one of the accounts that has now been blocked for socking. Risker (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just spent the better part of an hour adding references to this article and trying to establish the subject's notability. I have concluded that he does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC and the article should be deleted. The article claims significant work in the field of vaccines and immunization, and that is the focus of the company he founded; that sounds important. However, I could find very little coverage of him, and literally nothing at Google Scholar (it is hard to search because he has a very common name, but adding "vaccine" as a disambiguator did not help). The article was written entirely by a collection of special purpose accounts, and pretty much all the information is either unreferenced or referenced to primary sources. I am willing to be convinced of his notability, but so far I have not seen the evidence and I recommend deletion. MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also tried to find information related to notability but could not. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame of Grand Canyon University, but I've never heard of this school. I find the excessive editing by SPA (and IP-accounts coming from Indiana) very suspicious and disruptive (they repeatedly reverted the orphan/refimprove/primary sources improvement requests added to the article). As you can see he only has three links to his page, and one is Stephen Hall (disambiguation). At the very best, it's WP:TNT. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was your request for page protection that called the article to my attention. I was really hoping I could fix the problems identified in your tags, but was unable to find the needed sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular, I could only find single-digit citation counts in Google scholar for this particular Stephen G. Hall (there is an economist with the same name who is much better cited.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: & @MelanieN: I noticed this too - the British economist Stephen G. Hall is much better suited to this article. He has an extensive list of works at VIAF. I'd be happy to build an article on him but I have a feeling it would be constantly reverted by the fan club of the current article. Any idea how to proceed? —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea. I would suggest you wait until this discussion has run its course. If the result is delete, then all the history and everything connecting it to the biochemist would be gone, and you could create a new "Stephen G. Hall" article without any baggage. If anyone tries to G4 the new article you can just point out that this is a completely different article from the one that was deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: thanks, I'll keep an eye on it and put on my list to create if the current article is deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A low h-index (about 5) and no other indications of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. -- 120.17.33.20 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person has verifiable academic degrees and from the timeline apparently went into industry after postdoctoral training instead of academia. That explains the lack of publications that one would see from an academic. However a lack of publications is not always an indicator of significant contribution. He received his undergrad at Grand Canyon University, which is well-respected and accredited university in Phoenix. The article has been cleaned up and I do not agree with the deletion recommendation. (talk 05:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above comment was posted by User:Axleoperator. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: User:Axleoperator is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Risker (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing here to indicate notability as either an academic or a businessperson (unless having your very own sock drawer makes you notable ;) WP:TNT to make way for an article on the economist without cluttering the edit history. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:38, 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 02:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSE HTML Validator[edit]

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

~~No evidence of notability~~, most edits to the article are by the person who wrote the software. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Only two of the sources offered even discuss this product and both of them are WP:PRIMARY. The rest of citations discuss other software products this one is claimed to be compatible with. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the developer of CSE HTML Validator. It's a software program that has been around since early 1997 (check the whois on its domain name htmlvalidator.com) and has thousands of customers. Other software products have integrated support for it, as listed in the article. It's also mentioned in several web development books sold on Amazon.com by major publishers. Recommend keeping it. AWiersch (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)... ALSO: A search for "HTML validator software" on Google lists CSE HTML Validator's website in the #1 spot, and the next 3 sites listed (spots 2-4) are also related to CSE HTML Validator. It's also #1 on bing.com for the same search. AWiersch (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AWiersch (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That says a search can be useful. I'm not simply talking about the number of hits. I'm talking about the quality, not quantity. The software is the top hit for the search I mentioned and Google is very particular about giving results that people want. AWiersch (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, after some minutes of despamming the article isn't too bad anymore. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quality is improved, but it still lacks the independent and reliable secondary sources needed to establish notability as required by our policy at WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, I found only one reference on the listed pages apart from self-published integration plugins. I didn't try hard, just quick scans for "valid" on pages with features of the listed 3rd party products, ignoring one case where I ended up on the CSE HTML validator forum. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Wiersch has done an outstanding job in two areas:

[1] Search engine optimization and

[2] Working with other product vendors to add HTML validation to their products by using his product as a module (which also speaks well of his coding skills -- it's hard to be compatible with multiple products written by multiple vendors).

What his product is lacking -- and what is required by our Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline -- is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for CSE HTML Validator at https://books.google.com shows that it has been noted (hence it is notable) in several books by major publishers. AWiersch (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, please add one or two where you can see that they really discuss the software. Completely unplanned while doing something else I stumbled over https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#acknowledgments - but that's about your notability ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "really" discuss the software, but here are some that do more than just list or mention the software (that is, it talks a little about it or gives instructions on how to use it): https://books.google.com/books?id=j84aAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT464&dq=CSE+HTML+Validator&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZiYQVZm6FIe1ggTNvoKYBA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw https://books.google.com/books?id=UNdGyEGZ1SkC&pg=PA286&dq=CSE+HTML+Validator&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZiYQVZm6FIe1ggTNvoKYBA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA https://books.google.com/books?id=2c-tF6bzaKcC&pg=PA490&dq=CSE+HTML+Validator&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZiYQVZm6FIe1ggTNvoKYBA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ https://books.google.com/books?id=ZDBduz1krlIC&pg=PA118&dq=CSE+HTML+Validator&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZiYQVZm6FIe1ggTNvoKYBA&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ Here's a recent YouTube video made by someone else (Andy Williams): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2GjmsN5Uoc AWiersch (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "more than just list" sounds good. My own google scholar searches to show the notability of something where I was sure that it should be notable often ended on obscure papers mentioning the term once in a general intro, with a reference later, and talking about something completely different in their main sections. :-( –Be..anyone (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Okay, I'm satisfied by the WordPress 3 Search Engine Optimization and HTML in 10 Simple Steps or Less sources. WP:GNG requires only that multiple reliable independent secondary sources exist, not that they must be cited in the article (which these aren't). This establishes notability, which is pretty much all we consider at AfD. Everything else is content, for discussion somewhere else. Msnicki (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WordPress 3 Search Engine Optimization ref meets GNG, in my opinion. Note that I am !voting to keep, not withdrawing my nomination. I have never liked the fact that whoever files has a one-person veto and prefer that AFDs be closed normally. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 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 Moved to Draft:Madumita Digital Studio (and then Speedied as WP:R2) –Davey2010^Talk 18:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madumita Digital Studio[edit]

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

Unotable company-possibly spam or advertismet? Wgolf (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are no references. It is impossible to verify this information, let alone comment on notability, without references. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well according to Google it's "Madhumita Digital Studio", That aside other than breastfeeding videos I'm getting nothing.... –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously a spam/ad. – nafSadh did say 23:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied (Clear-cut A7). Pax 08:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Upon source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet WP:CORP - no/very little coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 14:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Rahat (Message) 15:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article to Draft:Madumita Digital Studio. That should be appropriate. SD0001 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be? – nafSadh did say 18:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I AfD'd Draft:Madumita Digital Studio. – nafSadh did say 18:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J-B Weld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Basically single-source text about a good but nonnotable glue manufacturer. The first AfD discussion was in 2004, but in 10 years our notability rules became more severe. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I don't work on cars and haven't bought glue since Elmer's in elementary school many decades ago, but even I've heard of this company and its product. Article is a mess, but that can be fixed. (!vote based on assumption some RS can be located.) Pax 08:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - While not quite as notable as products likeWD-40, it is part of the culture. I think it can be properly sourced if someone is willing to put in more than just a few minutes of time. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GOOGLETESTing throws up a reasonable selection of reliable sources, which I'm working on adding. The article is badly out of date. The real problem with this article is neglect, not notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Notability", we define it in terms of independent discussion of the topic. Either you really didn't look for this one, or else you're just deleting it on article quality, rather than topic notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 26 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) 21:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle San[edit]

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

Not notable DJ, no indication of any releases or significant profile Karst (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable DJ lacking non-trivial sourcing. reddogsix (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this got to be a joke, fails WP:MUSICBIO in every sense. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 20:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kallappadam[edit]

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

This is a non-notable film, with no sources given, and should therefore be deleted in my opinion. I tried speedy deletion, but ~~they kept on being removed~~ films aren't eligible under A7. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The article has been expanded substantially since I originally prod'ded it, but that expansion did not include any independent sourcing. --Finngall ^talk 14:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep based on new information. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete- unsourced, non-notable, WP:GNG. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- OOPS, I guess I felt lazy and forgot to google. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick Google search yields non-trivial coverage in sources like The Hindu and Gulf News. Lack of good citations in the article does not mean they don't exist. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unsourced, almost unintelligible, promotion - Arjayay (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE thru WP:INDAFD: Kallappadam

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

STRONG Keep per easily meeting WP:NF. Gene93k is eminently correct. Come on Finngall, L235, and Arjayay The nominator (sorry Joseph) made a poor deletion rationale, should hone his WP:BEFORE, and really should understand that a topic's notability is found per sources being available, and not whether an article is sourced or not. We have enough sources speaking toward this film for the topic to meet WP:NF. IE: The Hindu, and many others. Did you guys forgot to do BEFORE yourself prior to opining? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn I guess you're right. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least it is now fixed up enough. I'd close it myself per WP:IAR but we do have a few other deletes that need to revisit the situation.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable as per meeting WP:NFSOURCES. Source examples include [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 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. With apologies to ElKevbo, I'm going to close this as if it never happened: the nominator is a sock account of Mangoeater1000. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Sowell[edit]

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

Totally non-notable, only created to add on Sweet Briar College as alum.--Cantucove (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to meet our notability guidelines. Other editors are cautioned, however, that notability guidelines or the existence/non-existence of a stand-alone article have little or no impact on whether this individual should be included in one or more articles. That is a separate decision that must be made on its own merits by the editors working with those articles. ElKevbo (talk) 16:38, 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. Speedy Delete per G5. Please contact me if you would like this article userfied. Nakon 02:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frontschwester[edit]

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

Created by confirmed sockpuppet of blocked user. Speedy deletion tag (G5) twice removed by new user. New case has been opened for this new account, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav#20_March_2015. 4ing (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has a language link to Norwegian. There are numerous books in Norwegian on this topic, written by unmerited amateur historians. --Habilemonkac (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Habilemonkac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If it was written by a banned user, then Speedy Delete as a G5, otherwise Keep, it seems reasonably notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 14:31, March 20, 2015‎ (UTC)

At least 4 other users including myself have edited the article. --Habilemonkac (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a bad article, but on an important subject. the Norwegian WP article looks much better, not being laced with statements that they were an SS organisation. The article seems to rely mainly on two sources: a published article and a Norwegian master's thesis. Unfortunately, my Swedish is not good enough for me to read the Norwgegian WP article or the Norwegian sources cited here. I am unsure whther the best course is to reduce it to a stub or to delete it for someone to start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Frontsøster" is a common phrase in Norwegian and relates to women who volunteered to as health workers for the Germans in war zones during WW11. However, if you google the german phrase frontschester/n there aren't a whole lot of entries; and those who exist appear to refer as much to women in WWI as women in WWII. There may be something in here that is worthy of its own article also on WPEN; but both title and scope needs to be better defined; also in order to get the article NPOV. Iselilja (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5 as an article created by a blocked/banned user in violaton of block/ban; [removed own comment per CU result] Iselilja (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (and rewrite) per G5 - recent edits have only been small additions (WP:G5), one short paragraph can be easily saved or restored. If the topic is notable, the article should be rewritten from scratch. It should be based on research from established historians and other topic experts, not primarily on a brand-new thesis from November 2014 (published in February 2015). Such sources should be used more carefully (WP:RS), especially for a controversial topic. GermanJoe (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems reasonably notable. I can not see that the article says that it "were an SS organisation", although having SS-physician Ernst-Robert Grawitz as one's leader for many years might have some ramifications. --White girl syndrome (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— White girl syndrome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Highly POV and despite the generic nature of the first sentence appears to concentrate almost entirely on Norwegian volunteers. The first line suggests this was just a term for German military nurses. However, the whole tone of the rest of the article seems to be highly critical of these individuals and suggests they all had close links with the SS and "were cogwheels in the Nazis' deadly race program", which seems unlikely if they were indeed just military nurses. The suggestion almost seems to be that anyone who served Germany in the Second World War was some sort of war criminal, which is POV to say the least. Some of them doubtless were; most were not. Added to which, the introduction says the term was also used in the First World War, before the Nazis and SS even existed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've also opened an AfD for Foreign volunteers for nursing for Germany during World War II, created today by Habilemonkac. - 4ing (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and rewrite per WP:TNT) based on review. I did some minor ce, but stopped given the fact the article is badly written, has WP:RS, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:POV issues, as well. Kierzek (talk) 15:11, 27 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. Withdrawn Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jones (musician)[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat Root - in the process of discussing that article, I happened upon this page for one of the band's members, who does not appear to be notable himself. None of the sources provided are independent except for a radio listener's review on MySpace (and the link for that doesn't work anyway). No evidence that he passes WP:MUSICBIO. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn This source provides significant independent coverage, and there may be others like it out there. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:08, 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Astronomical Review[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First AFD was closed as "no consensus" back in 2012, but there is no improvement in notability. Not indexed in any selective databases. The only third party source is from the SETI Institute, of which this journal is a fund raising partner. While the SETI Institute certainly is notable, notability is not inherited and the coverage on the SETI website is certainly not in depth. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur that there seems to be no external evidence that this journal is notable.PianoDan (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge to SETI_Institute#Funding_supporters. Papers in GS were either not cited at all, or cited by 1 or 2 papers at arxiv.org. Doesn't seem to be influential. ~~But the tieup with SETI is a funding source for both, so it could be mentioned there.~~ – Margin1522 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not unsympathetic towards a merge if there's a suitable target. But I don't really see how to merge this to SETI_Institute#Funding_supporters, beyond mentioning the journal's name there. We can hardly start describing all SETI supporters in that section, can we? --Randykitty (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That's all I had in mind. It is mentioned on SETI's site, but then so is My Broker Donates. If it seems out of place in the funding paragraph then I would be OK with delete. It looks like only five articles on WP link to Astronomical Review. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – On second thought, the only reason to leave a redirect is to provide information about the journal to readers who click the link, so it doesn't make sense to send them to SETI. Another possibility would be to redirect to List of astronomy journals. But with a few exceptions the policy in "List of XXX journals" articles seems to be WP:RTAF. So I guess that leaves delete. If needed an external link can be added to Roger Penrose, who is on the editorial board. The other three cites are in footnotes. Those can be left, or unlinked if we don't want to invite editors to recreate it immediately. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:13, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kavuri hills[edit]

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

seems like Land marketing , does not meet WIKI:GNG criteria nor reliable sources wiki:RS Shrikanthv (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after some consideration. Small neighborhood without widespread usage per WP:NPLACE; tried to find sources, almost-but-not-quite notable per WP:GNG. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above arguments. Mr RD 05:12, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence F. Jindra[edit]

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

Delete, while a competent professional still does not meet the GNG for article notability. References like [[25]] are advertising and attempting to sell or promote tickets. [[26]] is a one line ention and it's not about the Dr. The newsday as far as I can tell is the best source available. It's not trivial and does some in depth discussion Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, competence is not notability. Publication record turns up only one reasonably well-cited article, with an overall h-index of 4. The Newsday piece just looks like generic local-human-interest stuff. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails wp:prof as an academic physician, the most logical claim to fame. BakerStMD T|C 19:17, 27 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. Delete, this article needs to be completely recreated from scratch. No objection to recreation should it follow guidelines. Nakon 02:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gongchang.com[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 12:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete wholly promotional and while that could be fixed sources seem very lacking to do so – the ones provided seem mostly to be recycled press releases and a search turns up only mentions and promotional sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The only source I could find in English was this, which called it an imitator of Alibaba. But the Chinese sources appear to be better. Admittedly my Chinese is not that great, but to me they read more like regular market news stories, not like press releases. As it stands the article is written like an advertisement, but that can be fixed. An article like this is useful when researching topics like construction equipment. There tend to be a lot of hits to Chinese b2b sites, so it helps to have some information about the particular site. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT The website might be notable, but the article reads rather promotional. It was created by a possible WP:SPA. He wrote a spammy article (zh:世界工厂网国际站, which has been speedied for three times and salted) about the website on Chinese wikipedia, and soon translated it into english. Antigng (talk) 08:49, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6th Army Corps (Azerbaijan)[edit]

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

Has been at WP:PNT without translation for over two weeks. The text in English is largely unsourced praise in violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV. The article was PRODded following the usual procedure for pages that have expired at WP:PNT but someone removed the PROD tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per standard procedure for untranslated articles. --Jac16888 ^Talk 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you know that when there's a bit in English that suffices for a stub we typically just remove everything that isn't English. I don't think the English that's there is a valid stub, though, on WP:NPOV and WP:N grounds. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only actually useful content is the name of the commander and the areas they are based, I don't think that's enough to hold an article--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this is highly strange to me. I have no idea why this is in Farsi. The language of Azerbaijan is Azeri (Turkish language, not Persian) and/or Russian. Not to say Persian people can't contribute articles on Azerbaijan, but it's very odd that it's clearly being translated from Persian into English, possible copyright issue. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:51, 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 Soft delete. Article may be restored on request by any administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DragonFire SDK[edit]

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

From what I can see, DragonFireSDK isn't actually notable. It's not mentioned on the Google News archive, it's mentioned very briefly in one or two books, and the only non-press release mention I can find on Google is Dr Dobbs' recommendation, which I don't think counts as "notable" on its own. —ajf (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are six citations in the article:

A listicle on a non-obviously notable tech site (I don't think this is notable)
A press release (invalid, obviously)
Two primary sources (invalid for notability, only verifiability)
Dr. Dobbs Jolt Award post (is this notable?)
A review on someone's blog (not notable)

So, they don't really make it seem notable. —ajf (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smuckola had some thoughts on this at Talk:DragonFire_SDK#Deletion which they decided not to post here, for whatever reason. —ajf (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 22:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 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 delete. The article is found to be an essay about an unnotable neologism, and therefore not permissible for inclusion on an encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libre knowledge[edit]

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

A rambling essay filled with superfluous images and lots of over-interpreted sources, WP:SYN and WP:CITOGENESIS in the references section (and even WP:COI it seems — see Libre knowledge#cite_note-brochure2005-102). All in a network of articles used to promote the author's favourite vocabulary. I cannot even discern the topic very clearly.

Wikipedia is already biased enough in favour of open-whatever movements without propaganda pieces like this one.

If there is to be any article at all about "libre knowledge", however defined, I will argue that it is preferable to WP:BLOWUP this version. — Keφr 20:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose: The article has just been redone in the last month (mostly during February 2015). The work was done in parallel to (or on top of) the work on Libre (word) during the past several months which was accepted only yesterday (on 12 March 2015). The trickiest part was separating out the "cultural", "knowledge" and "word" aspects of "libre" and trying to put the right sections in the right articles. There is unavoidable overlap in the history (common roots), but each forms a different branch worthy of its own Wikipedia article because each attracts readers (and edits of people) with an interest in that particular aspect (culture and the arts, knowledge, and the word itself). The images were carefully chosen to provide context and background for the interested reader.
Admittedly, I spent a lot of time contributing to the updates, so I obviously would not support its deletion so soon (if ever). I personally do use the word "libre" rather than "free" or "open" when it seems appropriate (to me) and have a keen interest in the word, libre knowledge and the cultural implications. I have tried to portray what I know as best I can using the references I know about or can find. Please give others a chance to edit the article to improve it. Deleting it removes that opportunity and further entrenches the "open" bias to which you refer ('libre' and 'open' are not the same except in practical terms in certain contexts).
The WP:CITOGENESIS issues can be fixed, and I am sure many improvements can be made. So, please give it a chance. - K (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically an essay. The sourcing seems to consist mostly of synthesis and explanatory footnotes. Also note that some of the sources go to articles written by "Tucker K", which seems a bit circular. If there's value in such an article, it should probably be written by someone else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?[edit]

For the record, I am not receiving remuneration for editing pages on Wikipedia. The reference highlighted above refers to a brochure prepared for workshops held in South Africa in 2005. As is evident in the brochure, the project was strongly aligned with the mission of Wikipedia - reminder:

to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.^[1]

Although that particular project ended early in 2006, my then employer continued to support my activities related to libre knowledge and open education until I left the organisation at the end of 2008. During all of that time it seemed appropriate to share knowledge gained through those projects on Wikipedia, which I regarded as the epitome of libre knowledge.

Since then I have continued to develop learning resources related to libre knowledge and occasionally support organisations aligned with the mission above, usually on a voluntary basis, and none of these have paid me to edit Wikipedia pages.

To me this seems to be an "equivalence of interest", not a conflict of interest. I hoped that some merciless editing would balance my biases and lead to a better article. Merciless deletion seems a bit harsh and removes the opportunity for commons-based peer production to take its course.

Having said that, there is obvious opposition to my participation, and I understand this. So, at least for a little while, I will at most contribute minor edits and comment on Talk pages, unless something changes in the meantime.

Please advise if there is anything more I need to do to fully address this now apparent conflict of interest.

Thanks - K (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Mission defined on Meta

Canvassing disclosure[edit]

On reading Wikipedia policies (which I am still trying to get my head around) I came across the issue of canvassing and realise I may have inadvertently drawn unbalanced attention to this discussion. I am on a mailing list in which a discussion was taking place in which the topic of alternative terms for free software arose. In the discussion I stated my position (in support of the word "libre") and added: "Ironically, the Libre knowledge article has been nominated for deletion. So take a read soon in case it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libre_knowledge." - K (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite being myself a proponent of the libre philosophy, I know an essay when I see one, and it does not belong to WP. If there is valuable content to be found here that is not already in Libre (word) or Libre software, merge it. (And yes, "libre software" is actually a redirect to "free software" which some people would rather not use, but that's the WP:COMMONNAME.) @KTucker: thank you for your honesty about potential COI and canvassing issues. Tigraan (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a little-used neologism. Despite the 100+ references in the article, they are about related topics and most do not even contain the words "libre knowledge". The few that do appear to be written by the person who coined the term. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 28 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 Ensiferum#Compilation_albums. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1997–1999[edit]

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

This article holds little to no information and is backed up by a single source that leads to an error on the bands official website, I have also failed in finding any reliable sources supporting the existence of this album. SilentDan (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ensiferum#Compilation_albums. (Nom could probably bundle most of the other blue-linked EPs by this group, as their articles appear to have the same faults as this one.) Pax 08:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Severin Sisters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BAND and appear to be retired from music (old info indicates they are now public school music teachers, which is cool, but not notable.) In six years since the last AfD, the band had gotten even less notable. Oh, I know notability isn't temporary, but despite this closing as keep the 1st time, I stand by my original AfD that they weren't notable to begin with. And to be clear, I did my due diligence. The band's website is now in Japanese, their talent agent hasn't updated the band's page in three years (and the band isn't listed on their main page as part of their talent stable), their Allmusic listing contains 2 albums on an unknown label (I checked). If you don't want to read WP:BAND the criteria this group clearly doesn't meet include: all of the ones pertaining to charting albums or singles, concert tours with significant coverage, major label albums, winner of major awards or competitions (emphasis mine), use in major TV, film, etc., being featured in a national broadcast, their music being in heavy rotation on the radio, and being prominent representatives of a local scene or style of music, a group consisting of 2 or more independently notable musicians. That leaves us with the final criterion: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." This group has not received multiple, non-trivial coverage in in independent reliable sources. Most of the Internet coverage is simply entertainment listings. There is simply no significant coverage of this band. No prejudice for recreation if they become active (and notable!) in their performance career again. Oh and P.S. opening for notable bands does not confer notability, as that is not inherited. Thank you for reading. Valfontis (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 06:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 06:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tempted to vote for delete per nom, only thing holding me back is an occasional mediocre looking review (here and here) and the fact that one of the sister's seems to have earned a major national award, per a dead but professional press report. That should at least bring one of the sisters past WP:MUSICBIO. I would say merge to a page for the award-winner, but since they seem to have chiefly performed as a duo, seems... well, not like an improvement, just jumping around to meet every letter of wp:band, for the sake of it. Also, seems like some coverage was also found in the old AFD debates. Earflaps (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Who won which major award? Re: Old AfD coverage. I'll check my library newspaper database, but it seems odd that all the significant coverage has disappeared behind a paywall. I know about WP:OFFLINE, but if they were notable so recently it seems there would be more coverage available in free online sources. Valfontis (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I try not to be fazed by paywalls. Google makes things convenient, yes, but at our base, Wikipedia is always a friend to print media (so that's very nice of you to offer to do real research). Also, I guess it's second place, not first, though I usually consider short-listing (making the top five) the equivalent of a significant nomination. (Heidi won second place at the National Mandolin Championship in 2002.) Just my preference though. At some point later I might try a search with year parameters set, since it seems all the coverage is fairly old. Oh, and the other afd mainly just brings up some local newspaper coverage. Probably not enough on its own. Earflaps (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question before I go digging around, because the near complete lack of interest in this AfD is contagious and I haven't gotten around to it--Are you saying "keep" based on a 2nd place finish in a minor national award although the guideline appears to only confer notability on winners (I'm not sure that only means first place but I think it's implied) of major awards and despite nothing but local newspaper coverage and a couple lukewarm reviews? I'm not trying to needle you, but the previous AfD was "keep" leaning toward "no consensus" mostly because it appeared the "keep" !voters had presented a better argument. I'm also curious why "jumping around to meet every letter of wp:band" is an issue, I mean, we have guidelines for a reason. P.S. Here is a link to the mandolin contest page instead of a dead press release: https://wvfest.com/winners/heidi-severin Valfontis (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Redacted. Valfontis (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted entire !vote. Fine fine, I've seen others do this before. I'm sure the closing admin can figure it out. I know I'm free to comment, but thanks for the reminder! :) Valfontis (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did an archive search. These are the press mentions outside of Salem, in their entirety:

"Relax in the wine country, as several Willamette Valley wineries feature brunches with sips of wine and Mom in mind. Willamette Valley Vineyards offers up a full brunch and tastes of its varied vintages, with music by the Severin Sisters." HEY, MOM, LET'S DO BRUNCH. Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Friday, May 2, 2003. KYLE O'BRIEN - Special Writer, The Oregonian

"An outgrowth of the increasingly popular Daisychain Music Fair, O Sister also shows off the city's impressive roster of bluegrass and roots music. Gender aside, the two-day event showcases a deep talent pool that includes such artists as Stephanie Schneiderman, the Flat Mountain Girls, Petty Cash, the Severin Sisters, Dee Settlemier and Nann Alleman, and Little Sue." PUTTING A SPOTLIGHT ON WOMEN IN MUSIC. Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Friday, August 1, 2003. DON CAMPBELL

"Severin Sisters (country/roots) 1:45 p.m. Amy Clawson (country) 3:30 p.m. Severin Sisters (country/roots)" MAIN STAGE. Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Tuesday, September 4, 2001

"7:30 p.m. -- Severin Sisters" THE OREGON GARDEN GRAND OPENING EVENTS SCHEDULE. Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Thursday, June 28, 2001

"6:15-7 p.m.: Severin Sisters" MUSIC SCHEDULE. Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Friday, June 1, 2001

"Main Stage 1:30 p.m., Dance Works 3 p.m., Silver Star Square Dance Club 4:30 p.m., Claudette Walker dancers 6 p.m., Severin Sisters and Brittany Bailey 7:30 p.m., The Stellar Fellars" MUSIC, BAVARIAN DINNERS SPICE UP ANNUAL ST. JOSEPH'S SAUSAGE FESTIVAL. Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Thursday, September 7, 2000. ANDREW MERSHON.

"Musical twins will play tonight in Island Park" (from "BRIEFLY". The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR). (July 28, 2006))

SPRINGFIELD - Twins from Salem, the Severin Sisters, will perform a free show today at the south end of Island Park, 200 West B St., Springfield.
The Willamalane Park and Recreation District, the event's sponsor, describes the sister act as "an amazing mix of country, bluegrass and American roots in a highly spirited show."
Both Amy and Heidi Severin are multi-instrumental- ists, with Amy's performing strength on banjo and Heidi on fiddle. Both also have orchestral backgrounds playing the cello and violin.
They write and arrange many of their own songs and have released three CDs, the latest two featuring original tunes. They both recently finished their junior years at Oregon State University.
The show starts at 6:30 p.m. Participants are encouraged to picnic, but concessions are available."

The Statesman Journal yields:

A 147-word story "Severin Sisters to play Nashville" about being invited to play one song onstage at the Ryman with John Cowan. Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 11 Feb 2003.

A 182-word story "Severin Sisters performs with pops orchestra" about playing with the Salem Pops Orchestra. Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 10 Nov 2005.

A brief mention (68 words total). "A pair of busy country performers, The Severin Sisters, appear Tuesday at Historic Deepwood Estate in the Music on the Green Series." Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 16 Aug 1999.

A slightly more in-depth piece: "Dreams, real life inspire songwriters" Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 17 Aug 2004. It's about the sisters teaching a songwriting class at American Roots Music Camp at Stayton High School.

442-word piece. "Severins teach kids bluegrass". Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 19 June 2004.

A brief entertainment listing. "Free music, film Friday". Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 06 July 2006. The Severins are described as "rising stars". Note: See WP:UPANDCOMING.

"Amy Severin, lead singer and banjo player with The Severin Sisters, said everyone was surprised and pleased at the turnout last year. 'It's grown so much each year, and I'm so happy that something like this happens in Salem where families can come out and experience local music,' she said. The Severin Sisters will be performing as a five-piece band for the festival. The rest of the band is Heidi Severin on harmony vocals and mandolin, Matt Arcana on guitar, Chris Schelske on bass and Jason Carter on drums." From "Locals shine at bluegrass festival". Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 05 Aug 2004. The Grassroots Music Festival was a free festival sponsored by a small local church.

Brief mention. "Relax at Grassroots Music Festival". Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 07 Aug 2004.

A brief mention of them opening for the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, nothing but a mention, the story is about NGDB. "Gettin' down to the Nitty Gritty". Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 14 July 2005.

Summer entertainment listings--they played at a free city concert series and a free university concert series. They are called "local favorites", nothing in depth. "Pop, classical, Celtic, rock, jazz and free!". Cowan, Ron. Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 10 June 2007

They played at the reopening of the Elsinore Theater. "Restored". Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 31 Oct 2004.

Another brief mention. "Take a bow for helping Elsinore return to fame". Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 26 Oct 2004.

551-word feature. "BLUEGRASS GROUP KEEPS BUSY" Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 11 June 2000. Abstract: "The twins, who are the focal point of the bluegrass band Severin & Bailey, are actually a lot more level-headed than that. Joining them in the band are singer and guitarist Brittany Bailey, 16, of Eugene and bassist Louanne Clevenger, a teacher at Scio Elementary School."

"Elsinore to celebrate Oregon's 150th through music, history". Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 05 Mar 2009. Salem Pops Orchestra and friends salute Oregon. Brief lineup mention.

Lineup mention. "Grassroots fest features local talent". Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 21 July 2005.

Festival listing (Grassroots again). "on stage". Statesman Journal [Salem, Or] 08 July 2006.

That's all! Valfontis (talk) 16:09, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magonia (magazine)[edit]

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

This is an article about a magazine whose website resides in (404 for me) personal webspace of a domestic ISP. It ha ssuperficial referenciness, but the references don't appear to be about the actual magazine. No evidence of importance is presented. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- As a defunct magazine (now a website), I might have said NN. HOwever criticism of UFO-believers is a notable topic. Keeping the article might be useful for recording where the magazine content is to be found. Undecided. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense if there was any credible evidence that it is or was significant. I find none. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything to show notability in the area. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defunct magazine, highly obscure, primary sources only, fails notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:01, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Gribbin[edit]

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

Not notable, some references. Found one. Does one reference make him notable? here Bfpage |leave a message 15:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UML Designer[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG. The only sources I could find in Google were primary or not WP:RSes. Apparently, it is the most-installed UML tool in the Eclipse community per http://marketplace.eclipse.org/metrics/successful_installs/last30days. No metrics on use or uninstall rate though and an order of magnitude below the first tool in the list. It's a shame that Wikipedia doesn't have a way to recognize this sort of notability, but the subject doesn't appear to meet current notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 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 deleted by MelanieN (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Harper (Libyan footballer)[edit]

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

Article contains no references to support the presented information. A Google search identifies no mentions of Josh Harper in connection with Al-Madina, etc. Crewe Alexandra has no "President of Pitch Maintenance" (like most clubs, it has a head groundsman - John Huxley). Article appears to be a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul W (talk • contribs) 09:53, 20 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious hoax, almost certainly some kid messing about, probably writing about his friend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 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 no consensus. Nakon 00:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Blackburn[edit]

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

Claim to fame is being interim mayor for a smallish (less than 70k population) town in Louisiana. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Placeholder article. No other Internet sources are available. Other sources would be off-line in Shreveport Times, Shreveport Journal, or Bossier Banner-Tribune. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayors of this city are not defacto notable, so there is no need for a "place holder article". The sources tend towards primary sources and extremely local sources. They are not enough to pass the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 70000 is a lot of people. Providing information on the mayor of such a city does a service to the public. A bad precedent would be set by deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 11:32, 27 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 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk Kiev[edit]

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

No notability is established. No sources, poorly written. Appears to be written by a member or fan of "hulk kiev" Jcmcc450 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Jcmcc450 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 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 delete. Nakon 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dependence (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG and there debut album is releasing only in May 2015.At best a case of WP:TOOSOON Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They may get more coverage nearer the album's release date but as it stands, they fail to pass WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 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 delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E-Twow[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:PRODUCT. Online coverage consists of listings on several online scooter dealers, can't find any product reviews or coverage in WP:Reliable sources. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the only sources are from the company's own site (not independent) and a seemingly self-written review (likewise). No indication of notability as defined by relevant policies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The E-Twow company is only a few years old, but it’s new unique e-scooter technologies are proving to be popular as they have released a few new models every year. Their design department has the skills and patentable ideas that have taken these e-scooter a few steps ahead of their competition.

As our world changes over to a more renewable and sustainable way of commuting, these well designed cutting edge e-scooters will play a big role in this transformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotemar (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ by, I'm guessing, company owner Robert Dasc. (The article was created by an SPA named Robert291.) Pax 21:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although this product has some coverage, none of them add to the product's notability per WP:PRODUCT:

[27] – basically a press release website, companies can publish press releases through that site. Since this source is not independent of the subject, it does not add to the article's notability.
[28] – forum post, fails WP:UGC.
[29] – Another "press release distribution network", source is affiliated with the subject.
[30] – Another press release.

The parent company does not have an article, so merging isn't an option. Esquivalience ^t 04:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[31] - An objective and independent product review by a reputable website in this niche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.124.50 (talk) 14:44, 24 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MindAlign[edit]

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

Not notable topic. The references are really blogs and not really independent news sources. Bfpage |leave a message 22:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 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 delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A. M. Leary[edit]

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

Notability claim is being mayor of the town of Minden, Louisiana (population <15k). Sources are (1) an offline list of mayors (2) a genealogy website (3) a local obituary and (4) a brief mention in a contract document regarding construction of a water-works system. Zero evidence of any significant WP:RS third-party coverage whatsoever. Update While there now appear to be more sources (similar to the aforementioned sources), now half of the article is about Leary's (non-notable) children. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Size of city is not a factor. Local politician. Ised on-line sources available. He left office in 1905. Other sources would be off-line in newspaper microfilm c. 1905. Was active Democrat politician for FDR and served in HOLC. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to this, city size is indeed a factor, especially when you are talking about a town this small. Both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL stress "significant press coverage", which is clearly not demonstrated here.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The press coverage is both extremely local and not ever more than we would expect for the mayor of such a small city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The press coverage is regional and there is quite a bit on-line for someone who left office 110 years ago. Other sources to which I am not privy would be off-line. There are 15 sources, including mention in a book and an engineering journal as well as newspapers.Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The number of sources doesn't matter (especially when several are about Leary's non-notable children). Please read this footnote regarding non-trivial coverage from the WP:BIO policy page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His obituary is written by The Shreveport Times in 1937. In the past, an obituary written by the news department has been considered proof of notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please show me the policy link where I can find the rule that says "having an obituary written by the news department proves notability." Having an obit written in a non-local newspaper would suggest national notability (i.e., if the NY Times printed it), but that's no the case here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not necessarily national, and it is not in the Leary case. Here is a recent example [32] of the Texas rancher Gene S. Walker, Sr., who was held notable because of his front-page obituary in The Laredo Morning Times. The distinction is an obituary prepared by the news department, rather than submitted to a newspaper by a funeral home. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have a policy page link and your just going to make up notability criteria. OK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you mean by policy link? [33]

No, that is a link to a prior AfD discussion. Examples of policy links include WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example where local coverage was sufficient for notability. [34] Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2.Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". -- The subject, A. M. Leary, is independent of the coverage. He left office 110 years ago and died 78 years ago. His obit was written by The Shreveport Times staff. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG with multiple independent sources.--TM 17:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How many of those sources include more than a sentence about the subject (versus passing mention or articles about his children)? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is one major source on Mayor Leary (The Shreveport Times obituary) and one on his father. In the other dozen or so sources, he is mentioned. I was able to piece together a full story. The Shreveport Times obit is what establishes his notability. Other sources that might be tapped would be off line in newspapers of 1904 or 1905. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having a source on Leary's father does not establish notability for Leary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The information on his father was essential to show how Mr. Leary came from a prominent family. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability purely related to his work in a very small town, which does not equal real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Notability guidelines do not mention mayors or sizes of their cities. It says local politicians with proper references; this article has all the references that are available. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do also use common sense, not just dogma. No sourcing except local guff that you'd expect in local papers. You could find that about pretty much anyone holding any office anywhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Yes, common sense would mean that this article meets the requirements. Or it could not have been written without the sources found. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Additional guidelines about the size of the town are therefore not necessary. Let's not invent guidelines for the sake of it. I've seen an argument above saying that many of the sources are not in-depth discussions of the subject. This may be the case, but breadth of references across many different reliable sources can offset this. This "the town is too small" stuff has to stop. That criterion was intended for topics that do not pass GNG but are still somehow notable. A lot of small town people rely on Wikipedia to learn the history of their place of birth. Let's keep it that way. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite if kept I was asked by the author of the article, ~~who I do not know,~~ to comment on the AfD. It seems that it's content and sources are largely of genealogical value, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. If it's kept, it should be rewritten to exclude the findagrave.com sources (i.e., content is generally added by contributors, and there's no editorial control), which are not reliable sources, and at least one genealogical source. It seems that there's marginal notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck out a part, I don't know him/her, but I just realized that I made a comment on another article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. At least two of the genealogical articles cited are newspaper or history book articles obtained through findagrave. Mr. Leary left office 110 years ago, and I have done an exhaustive search for materials on him. He falls under "local politician with adequate sources." Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based upon your comment, I went and did a thorough review of the article and found: 1) there was a fair amount of content uncited, 2) most of the content is based upon findagrave.com info-some of which is a typed version of a newspaper (vs. digital image of the newspaper) - which means all of the findagrave.com information is in doubt, and 3) there is only a small amount of information from reliable sources- once that his put something out to bid as mayor and another regarding relationships to cousins. There's also a fair amount of content about other family members that get off topic of this subject of the article. I now change my vote to Delete, there's very little substantive information from reliable sources about A. M. Leary. I tagged the places where better sources are needed or where content was not cited, for potential improvement.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:15, 28 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley Pipe Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Uglyz[edit]

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

With all due deference to WP:CSB, I don't see how this band is notable. Of the non-dead links, one "reference" is borderline reliable while the others are blogs or blatantly promotional in tone. Google is not throwing up anything else. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I declined a speedy deletion of this article in November 2012. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias might be at issue here, yes. I do think it is worth considering Nepalese magazine articles such as this one with regard to significant coverage. Also, Nepalese newspapers refer to them as a "famous" band and state they "earned a name for themselves with the hit Aundai Jandai". Some improvement in citing sources is definitely called for, but I would lean keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:03, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Static Television[edit]

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

Tagged since 2008. Not likely a notable WP:TVSHOW. jps (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has original programming and is important culturally to New Orleans. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkin' Funny[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:TVSHOW. No evidence of outside notability and not nationally synicated. jps (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan McConville[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable under WP:NACADEMICS. Searches reveal little other than the fact that he is a professor and has published a few academic works. This does not seem to equal "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" in my mind. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Similar to my vote on this matter this summer, I still think he's notable under WP:AUTHOR. I think he could still be notable as a professor, and I notice that we very rarely delete articles of full professors at reputable universities, but I think the case for WP:AUTHOR is a little more clear. In addition to the reviews of his work, this WorldCat search indicates that one of his books is held in >500 libraries and another is held in >300. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, he did have a media moment in 2011 [35] on the coattails of Sarah Palin and Paul Revere, when he was quoted in both American and British papers. But more ot the point, he passes WP:Creative by dint of being the author of widely and respectfully reviewed books. And, in my opinion, passes WP:PROF because of being widely cited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His books are widely reviewed. I think he also passes the notability rung of being cited as an expert in the field in the media.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Having a book publihsed by a unviersity press and another by Longmans (a serious publihser of textbooks) shoul be enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abba (Boko Haram)[edit]

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

Only source I could find to support this article was the one linked in the references. Non-notable, little potential for additional resources to turn up, especially given that "Abba" is actually not much to go on when searching for information as it is a fairly common name. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another gunned-down third-string jihadi who isn't going to get any more famous than he's not already. Trivial-mention source in a WP:1E event. Pax 09:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current sources do not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable under WP:GNG due to lack of "significant coverage". Anotherclown (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill wannabe terrorist. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 24 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 WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dobson[edit]

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

Text haphazardly removed from the article by AndrewDobson100 before it was prodded with the rationale that "subject of the page wants it deleted". AndrewDobson100 has no edits to any other page at WP, and I'm tempted to AGF that this is Professor Dobson himself. Bringing here for further attention. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the terrible sourcing and the lack of substantive edits I see no obvious reason against letting this article fall by the wayside. On a minor point note also the edits by Profandrewdobson earlier on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article definitely needs improvement, Dobson is the (full) Professor of Politics at a relatively significant British university and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. Full professors holding established chairs at significant British universities are generally notable (note that very few chairs in Europe are named). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "full professor" means less than it used to, and the University of Keele is only a mid-rank British university, so I'm not convinced by this argument. Whether he's a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences seems unclear, as discussed below. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clicking Find Sources above leaves me considerably underwhelmed. JSTOR is mostly class curriculum lists and a few passing-mentions. The newspaper hits are pieces quote-farming their agendas, with none of them being about the subject himself. Basically we have a prof doing the usual routine things who briefly dabbled in a failed candidacy in a historically inconsequential party which has never won more than 1.04% of the vote in any of its ten outings. Basically, he's falling short of WP:ACADEMIC (see 2nd paragraph of the "nutshell", and I wouldn't consider him overly influential even within his own field as his leaning is to long-established prevailing norms), WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG overall. Pax 10:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article claims that he became an academician of the Academy of Social Sciences in 2008. AcSS changed their individual membership title from academician to fellow in 2014 [36], but he is not currently listed by the academy as one of their fellows [37]. If he were, he would probably pass WP:PROF#C3 but this anomaly worries me. Does anyone know whether he really was an academician but for some reason stopped being one, or whether this claim should be removed? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He wouldn't be the first AcSS fellow (accidentally?) not listed there. When I researched for the article on the geographer Ron Johnston, I remember not finding him in their database even though he claimed to be a founding member on his faculty website. Apparently, his name has been added since then. Philip Cooke would be another example of someone not in the database claiming membership. In neither case, I can say wether there had actually been a discontinuation of membership or not, though. On a side note, I think Dobson's citation numbers alone would make him notable. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I am indeed the subject of this page and as I am about to retire I would like the page to close. I used to be an Academician, by the way, but am no longer. AndrewDobson100 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewDobson100 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: If the person it's written about wants it deleted, we should honour that wish IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's appropriate to say thank you for a comment, but thank you anyway Joseph2302. I hope that the eventual consensus is to delete the article. Thank you all for the discussion. AndrewDobson100 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The argument that we should honour the subject's wish that the article be deleted would be completely bogus if the subject was clearly notable, but since the notability case here is marginal at best and the sourcing is poor to non-existent deletion is the obvious way to go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't intend to object your overall conclusion, Green Political Thought has received over 1000 citations per gscholar, has been published in four editions and been translated into Spanish. And there are two additional solo-authored monographes cited more than 500 times each, and some other well-cited publications. He isn't marginally notable, he is notable per WP:ACADEMIC criteria #1. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:06, 27 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 herein is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ustaad Surendra Narayan Das[edit]

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

An unsourced biography created by a WP:SPA. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. An internet search reveals no reliable sources, none of which can even support the information presented in the article. As such, it is probably a WP:COI as well. BenLinus 1214^talk 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. non-notable. – nafSadh did say 20:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable bloke, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly COI, the user who made this article mentions himself near the end. Unless some reliable sources are added, I would say delete it. Jcmcc450 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom Wgolf (talk) 18:54, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Welfare Organization, Pahalgam[edit]

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

The founder of the organisation, Mushtaq Pahalgami meets WP:BLP but this organsiation is not yet notable in its own right, failing WP:ORG and doesn't have the depth of coverage to meet WP:GNG References: [1] is a comment on the organsiation by its founder so is not an independent source [2] and [3] are passing mentions only - they are ostensibly about Mushtaq Pahalgami.

All other sources I have located are business directory entries. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources added on talk page. Redirect to Mushtaq Pahalgami. All of this information is already in that article. More than other NGOs, HWO does seem to be kind of a one-man show. Coverage is mainly about him, little information at the HWO website about members, etc. If there is more coverage of HWO later, it can be recreated. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect - sources and information are duplicates of information on Mushtaq Pahalgami and many sources are passing mentions only. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margin1522, I've Added a couple of supporting third party references that specifically mention the organization. Please take a look at the list in the section below. Thanks, Samar khurshid (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mentions are OK but Mushtaq Pahalgami is still the focus of most of your sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major Restructuring of Content and References done

Carried out major re-structuring of the page's content and references. All claims are now supported by references from independent sources that specifically mention the organization. Please re-examine the following references before deletion.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9]

References

^ "Paradise lost, and well regained!". Precious Kashmir. 2014-08-12. Retrieved 2015-03-05.
^ "Swine Flu Epidemic:Government Evading Responsibility". Kashmir Excelsior. 2015-02-27. Retrieved 2015-03-05.
^ "HWO Organized free medical Camp". 5 Dariya News. 2014-09-23. Retrieved 2015-03-05.
^ "Lidder Valley T-20 Tournament begins". Precious Kashmir. 2014-09-01. Retrieved 2015-03-05.
^ "Lidder Valley T-20 Tournament begins". Kashmir Reader. 2014-08-31. Retrieved 2015-03-05.
^ "Trekking An Excellent way to relax and rejuvinate one's mind". Precious Kashmir. 2014-08-21. Retrieved 2015-03-05.
^ "KNS, HWO organizes seminar on RTI". Knskashmir.com. Retrieved 2015-03-05.
^ "KNS, HWO organizes seminar on RTI - Rising Kashmir". Risingkashmir.com. 2014-06-20. Retrieved 2015-03-02.
^ "Activist Allege Government Departments for not Obeying RTI Act". Kashmir Excelsior. 2015-03-04. Retrieved 2015-03-05.

Samar khurshid (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Samar khurshid: Thanks, but I have read those cites already – they are in the Mushtaq Pahalgami article, and again the focus is on him. I understand the problem here. Recently, with regard to a different article, I argued that we should keep an article about an organization, but the other !voters kept saying that almost all of the coverage was about the organization's president and spokesperson, so the article should be about her. Well, yes, most of the coverage is going to be about the spokesperson. That's why an organization has a spokesperson, so that reporters will have someone to contact and ask for comments! But I lost that argument and the article was deleted. I really don't think it makes all that much difference. As long as the information is in the Mushtaq Pahalgami article, it won't be lost. We will still have a redirect for "Himalayan Welfare Organization, Pahalgam", and that title will appear in the Wikipedia search box, exactly as if the article still existed. So readers who are interested in the HWO will still be able to find it. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Margin1522: My point is, while the Organization organizes the medical camps, relief camps, seminars etc., the RTI and PSGA campaigns are run by the President, but only in his capacity as an individual citizen, since that is how the RTI and PSGA Acts work. Also, while some of the newspaper articles are about statements made by the activist on behalf of the organization, others express his opinion and political/ideological position on matters as a private citizen. Which is why, having a 'HWO' redirect to 'Mushtaq Pahalgami' wouldn't exactly work. Denying either HWO or Mushtaq Pahalgami due recognition is discrediting either. Samar khurshid (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Samar khurshid: I'm sure that's true. But the problem is that we don't have any sources to support that. I read the sources and none of them say anything about how many members there are or what the members do. If you can find some third-party sources that say that, it would be a stronger case. For example, lawyers or activists who speak at the seminars, doctors who help at the medical camps, volunteers who help at relief camps, etc. The language doesn't have to be in English, and the sources don't even have to be online (although that's better). – Margin1522 (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the distinction is straightforward. You need independent, secondary sources about the organisation and you have don't have them. The references you have supplied are ostensibly about Pahalgami and do not provide a depth of coverage required to support this article. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Flat Out Precisely my point, you've been deleting these references without caring to have a discussion, and despite my appeal to hold deleting dead references, which i said would get fixed by the end of the day (as per word from the newspaper's editors) and did! Quoting from the BRD page, "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus". Hence the suggestion to take this discussion to the AFD entry of this article, where a more objective discussion is goin on.

Comment @Margin1522: Thanks for the suggestion, here's a list of urdu sources on seminars/relief camps organised by the organization. Please Consider.

'Pahalgam mein nasha aur tambaku mukhalif seminar munaqqad hua', Srinagar, 05th June, 2013, in Srinagar Times, ref. www.srinagartimes.net
'Pahalgam tent union ka aham ijlaas munaqqad', 27th May, 2014, Srinagar Times, ref. www.srinagartimes.net
'Pahalgam ke ghodebanon ko waajib ul qadar raqam wa guzar kee jaye', 31-05-2010, Srinagar Times, ref.www.srinagartimes.net
'glacieron ke phighalne se mahaulyati tawazun bigadne ka imkaan', 15-03-2010, Kashmir News Service, ref. http://www.knskashmir.com/
'Pahalgam ke wildlife zone mein ghair-qanooni taamiraat', 08-02-10, Daily Aftab, Srinagar
'Pahalgam mein rihaish-pazeer aabaadi ke liye master-plan 2004-05 dard-e sar', 11-03-10, Kashmir News Service, ref. http://www.knskashmir.com/
'Pahalgam mein Higher-Secondary ko degree college ka darja dene ke khilaf logon ne kiya muzahira', Ittelaat, Kashmir, ref. [website taken down, newspaper banned]
'Pahalgam mein Master-plan ki khilaafwarzi kar ke mukhtalif maqaamaat par hotelon ki taameer tezi se jaari', 02/01/10, Hind Samachar, ref. www.hindsamachar.in/
'Pahalgam mein hukumat ki jaanib se taamirati kamon aur rihaishi makaanat ki marammat par mukammal pabandi', 12/01/11, Ittelaat, Kashmir, ref. [website taken down, newspaper banned]

Samar khurshid (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Samar khurshid: Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy with some other things. Thanks for posting these sources. But it's hard to find the original articles since we aren't familiar with Roman Urdu and the links were to the top pages of the sites. Would it be possible to post an explanation of what each of those articles was about, and who wrote it, perhaps on Talk page of the article? What we need to find out is whether the authors of the articles were independent of the organization, and whether they provided enough detail to support a description of the organization. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Margin1522: Explained the urdu language sources at the article's talk page, as suggested. Yes, all of these references were news-reports by independent sources in different news-papers. please find the details on the talk page.

Comment @Samar khurshid: Thank you. With these sources I think it's clear that the organization has been active in holding seminars, demonstrations, etc. Now we need to add them to the article, but for now I'm going to change my !vote to keep. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Margin1522: Added the urdu-language references. Thanks for the help and guidance Samar khurshid (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sources to support the fact that the organisation holds seminars isn't enough for me to change me vote which remains, to redirect to the founder's article.Flat Out let's discuss it 00:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote is a clear keep. Supporting Refrences for the two pages are not the same anymore, and no, it's not just seminars, also PILs, RTIs, demostrations, public meetings, information campaigns etc. etc. Samar khurshid (talk) 18:14, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Alpha Secrets[edit]

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

Apparently minor and possibly self-published 80-page "collectible book", no sources, fails WP:NBOOK. McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating three other word-for-word identical articles which just change the titles:

Sigma Gamma Rho Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zeta Phi Beta Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delta Sigma Theta Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--McGeddon (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and tone is mildly promotional. Suggest bundling in Delta Sigma Theta Secrets and Zeta Phi Beta Secrets for same reasons. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Book is over one of the most historically significant black organizations in the united States and can be referenced at Amazon.com ^[1] and Google Boo Search ^[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammycs (talk • contribs)

Delete per nomination. No dispute that the organizations are significant, the dispute is whether these *books* meet that criteria and it doesn't appear so.Naraht (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and essay WP:NOTINHERITED. It doesn't matter whether Alpha Kappa Alpha et al. are notable or not, no one is suggesting the deletion of articles about the organizations. What we are discussing here is the deletion of articles about these books. ― Padenton |☎ 18:27, 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 keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided below by two fellow admins and endorsed by a third. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balboa Capital Corporation[edit]

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

Non notable. Fastest growing almost always translates as "not yet large enough to be notable " A local recognition from E&Y is insignificant. Other references are mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added some material from an LA Times feature on the company. There is probably more information that could be added from the article, but I’m not sure if the revenue information should be included as the article is from 1994 and I’m sure the numbers are out of date by now. There are now several LA Times articles, several Inc. articles, and a few smaller publications used as references, and I believe that to be significant media coverage. This article was also accepted through AFC. Bcooper87 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH. Pax 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You do realize the fastest growing designation was for the period from 1988 to 1992 right? If it was 2010-2014, you might have a point, but you certainly don't here. I guarantee all major companies were once among the fastest growing companies in their industries. Whatever it was in 1992, the company is now pretty large ($250 million of transactions annually). Now on to the relevant question: is there RS coverage to justify an article? The answer is yes, per significant coverage such as: [38][39][40][41] and others. Additionally, the company has been quoted as an expert on loans by many publications: [42][43][44][45][46] and so on, which adds to notability. Pinging @Onel5969: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ThaddeusB. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: $250 million may seem a lot to peasants like you and me, but Wells Fargo lent 188 times as much in just one quarter last year. Compared to the big banks, Balboa is as microscopic as a bacillus. And "fastest growing" is a meaningless, ear-candy statistic for non-thinking audiences primarily bandied by promoters hawking tiny companies; i.e., a bum with a nickel in his pocket who finds a $10 bill sees his net-worth "grow fast" 200x, while a monster bank with $500 billion in assets might only go up 5% in one year - but it's a lot better to gain fifty bil than ten bucks, right? That's why virtually every time I see "one of the umpitty fastest-growing companies" claim listed in or close the lead of an article, the spam alarm starts wailing. Pax 08:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fastest growing designation is from a period 23-27 years ago. It should be completely irrelevant to this discussion. I guarantee that Wells Fargo was once (sometime around 1955) one of the world's fastest growing lender in percentage terms. Should it also be considered non-notable forever as a result?

Of course $250 million is a small amount compared to the world's largest lender. That also is in no way relevant. The notability requirements are not "largest in field", but rather "has received significant coverage". That has occurred here. (Incidentally, there is a big difference in "field" between an all encompassing business/personal/etc. lender and a company that only does business equipment loans, so the comparison is invalid to begin with.) My point wasn't that $250M = notability, but rather that the nomination reason was flawed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am struggling to understand what this company is supposed to notable for, lending to pizza makers or opening an office in Florida? There is one good recent story from the LA Times, but even that is about the company's growth, not about the uniqueness of its business model, or anything that makes it notable. So while there is a reliable source, it doesn't really establish notability under WP:CORPDEPTH. Walkabout14 (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although to an overall weakish degree. Source examples include: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that despite the limited coverage, the company fails to meet any reasonable threshold in the second para of WP:ORGSIG Walkabout14 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The company has garnered some coverage in respectable publications like the LA Times and the Washington Post. As NA says the coverage is "weakish" - aside from a 1994 LA Times article which was significantly about the business itself. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda George (Assyrian singer)[edit]

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

Over the course of several years, this recently deprodded article has been a long term target for WP:BLP issues, at one point requiring an OTRS ticket for protection. [52] The subject is a Assyrian singer who emigrated from Iraq to the United States, although it is not clear when this may have happened. I have made several attempts to find reliable sourcing for this article WP:BEFORE nomination but have not had success in my search. As with all of my nominations, please leave me a message on my talk page if reliable sources are located to support the existence of this article. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deWP:PRODded this because however modest her notability may be it is likely understated on ENG WP due to the nature of her notability being a non-English artform. I think we English speakers may have just brushed her aside and I want this case to be given full consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is understandable, thank you TonyTheTiger. I've added some relevant deletion sorting links, but should this be communicated elsewhere as well for higher visibility? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good job. I don't see any obvious other subjects, unless there is a Chicago sort.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda George (Assyrian Singer) is not well known internationally for two reasons, 1st. she sings in Assyrian which make her naturally not reach the English speakers or the international press, but we have our own papers and tv channels that you may concedes as our local press that she is a big star in, 2nd she sings for us Assyrian, a nation without country since centuries but strongly existing all over the world as well as in our homeland Mesopotamia (IRAQ), but we are strongly connected to each other all over the world, and Linda George is our number one music start and song release, event she participate, interview she makes spread in our nation instantly..

some of the sources that i'm trying to add on her biography right now: http://en.calameo.com/read/00235977076b7b586ac43 http://en.calameo.com/read/002359770b9a7b3632ef2 http://www.assyriatv.org/?s=linda+george and this is the promo of her 2015 album release: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9vHycdntZk

i am trying to update her profile and add these sources and searching for more to add, but i'm not very knowledgeable of Wikipeia but im trying to learn about it, like for example i have no clue how to add a picture in it.. so please be patient because i'm on it and i'm going to contact the singer herself to ask her for materials to add to her biography. this CAPTCHA is really annoying.!!! Thanks, Atour Shmuel (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 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 delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kmiotek[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only search results are his imdb profile/other list-type sites so unlikely that it could be improved to meet notability criteria. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we almost always delete poorly-sourced BLPs of film producers. I don't see what is special about this run of the mill business person. Some of the information appears to be a be a hoax. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 26 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. Hate to break the "No consensus" pattern but clear keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojpuri Boys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes criteria #1 of WP:BAND / WP:GNG. Source examples include: [53], [54], [55]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – This band already meet the criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 12 of WP:BAND and WP:GNG as well (look at the refs).Kingroyos (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 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 delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fircle[edit]

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

Hoax? I can't find any literature on this shape. Gaff (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the words of Senator Vreenak, "It's a fake!" schetm (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is BS, but I was tempted by a redirect to Squircle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Even the bits aren't right: there is no such thing as a "regular parallelogram", since all parallelograms have four (pairwise!) parallel sides, and if all lengths are the same it's called a rhombus. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Hoax at best.~~ It also seems that there are more "fircle" on the internet, although no none has discussed it in depth. VandVictory (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I could not find any reliable references to this shape. The Snowager-is awake 05:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a word used quite often in my community, and I was glad when I had seen that it was finally on the internet. I'm surprised it wasn't on here sooner. 15:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.61.28 (talk)

Sorry, but we need for your claim to have some degree of Wikipedia:Verifiability from a reliable WP:SOURCE. That is one of the 3 Wikipedia:Core content policies. Please also stop adding Urban Dictionary as a reference, since it appears you created that hoax article as well. --Gaff (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No notability. PianoDan (talk) 13:39, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport, John. The Internment of Japanese Americans during World War II[edit]

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

This is a botched attempt at an article on this book [56]. The book fails GNG, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (books). Gaff (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read the article and agree with the nominator's analysis. I see no evidence that the book is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor attempt at a not notable book article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The subject of the book, the internment of Japanese Americans is an important one, and I hope we have an article on it; if we do not, it might be possible to repurpose thismarticle as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have the article. See: Internment of Japanese Americans--Gaff (talk) 20:21, 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 speedy keep. Closing early as clear keep - Cantucove - please read WP:BEFORE as nominating perfectly fine articles for no reason usually doesn't end well. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp[edit]

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

Non-notable, no news coverage.--Cantucove (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chief of one of the branches of the CDC. She is fairly widely quoted in news articles related to autism, which seems counter to the assertion in the nomination statement. Will add some sources to remove doubts about coverage. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:31, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nom is reminded of WP:BEFORE. While being a CDC branch chief does not make somebody notable, this is not generally a position given to obscure scientists. Looking at GScholar, we see that her most-cited article was cited over 1000 (THOUSAND!) times, the second one over 600 times, the third one over 400 times. That's over 2000 for those three papers alone. That's not "fairly widekly quoted", that's exceptionally highly quoted and a clear meet of WP:ACADEMIC#1. I notice that the nom is new here, so I would recommend that they familiarize themselves more with WP policies and guidelines before nominating further articles for deletion. I strongly advice the nom to withdraw this proposal, to save the community time. In addition, this nomination seems to be "collateral damage" from an edit war on Sweet Briar College and a more collaborative approach to editing WP is highly desirable. --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Randykitty. Not only is she a CDC branch chief but a notable scientist. As an academic who clearly meets the notability criteria based on the amount which she has published. She has made numerous appearances in the American media, where she has been explaining some of the research she has been involved with, examples such as: [57], [58], [59], [60]. Like the comment above, I'm quite surprised at seeing this article being nomination for deletion. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:32, 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 delete. Nakon 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2021 World Women's Handball Championship[edit]

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

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL; article concerns events in the "distant" future. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 02:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was an official release from the IHF which kind of "started" the procedure of who gets to host the event by saying who bid. The decision will be made not that far away. More info on bids and all will follow when available. So, i don't see why it should be deleted as it is an scheduled event which is sourced. Kante4 (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super weak piss-poor keep Based on WP:CRYSTAL "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Ideally it should wait until June before being created. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know those above are gonna disagree with this - Press release or not this is way way too early, We don't generally have articles on events that are 3/4 years away and we certainly don't have one 5 years away!, No objections to it being recreated at a nearer time. –Davey2010^Talk 20:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and please also delete the 2023 World Women's Handball Championship and redirect both to IHF World Women's Handball Championship. Also please do the same for the men's 2021 and 2023 articles. Just because a site has been selected or countries are bidding to host a one-venue event does not make it worthy of its own article, six and eight years in advance! This is not the Olympic Games. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:28, 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 merge to Chrome OS. Nakon 00:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Nelson (inventor)[edit]

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

I don't think the subject is notable. The patent and the books do not make him notable, leaving only the disputed claim to have invented Chrome OS. There are no independent sources which support this claim (and it appears that everyone associated with Chrome OS who has spoken publicly has disputed Nelson's claim, e.g. 1). The claim, and Jeff more widely, has gotten minimal attention from reliable sources; the extent is pretty much this blog post. The existing sources do not, in my view, meet WP:BASIC. GooseUser (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My personal opinion is that the claim should be covered in the Chrome OS article. However, it was removed upon request by Nelson by at the BLP noticeboard. Given this fact, I am unsure how to proceed (the PROD was contested more on the basis of it warranting a full discussion than certain notability). My normal preference would be merge, but that may not be possible here... Possibly, Nelson couldn't sufficiently back his claim and was later embarrassed about making it. However, the claim was certainly picked up by RS (such as link ZDNet story which is definitely reliable, despite the attempt to dismiss it as a blog) and we are under no obligation to shield Nelson was embarrassment. OTOH, we do give some leeway to barely notable living people to have their own articles deleted and it appears the material won't be returning to Chrome OS (has been a year since it was removed) so maybe there is a valid reason to delete here. Pinging @DGG: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chrome OS as a WP:BIO1E. There are news sources here, here, here and here, but all are about the same topic (disputed authorship of Chrome OS) and all are in the same timeframe as each other. I think he can have a sentence or two in another article, but probably not too much more. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the "merge" idea as long as something can be made to stick on the ChromeOS page. Perhaps two sentences - Nelson claimed authorship; claim has since been disputed - would work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His inventor status is even in dispute, not really notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 26 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 // 09:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Suprise[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by another user. Claiming the player played on the national futsal team, but that does not satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL and there's no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Surprise definitely played for the national futsal team in international competition. I doubt that there is really any doubt about that and will assume the "claims" was just a poor choice of wording, not an actual intention to imply doubt... The general principle of the various athlete notability guidelines is that participating in the highest level and/or international competition of a given sport confers notability. It is hardly surprising that futsal wouldn't be covered under the football notability criteria as they are not the same sport. Yes, they are related, but so are (for example) American and Canadian football and no one would consider those to be the same sport... The reason international competition is usually considered to confer notability is because it attracts RS coverage, as was the case here. For example, [61][62][63]. There are many similar examples from official sources and about Milwaukee Wave activity. No, none of these sources rises to a level of obvious GNG notability. But the combination of these sources, together with international play, to me suggests that Suprise is notable. Additionally, a proper bio can be built by using official biographies (which don't establish notability, but are otherwise valid sources), so theoretical concerns about the page forever being a pseudo-biography wouldn't be warranted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So based on what I'm hearing (or reading), you agree with me that the article doesn't meet the notability guidelines and yet your suggesting to me that the player is notable? That makes zero sense. – Michael (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying NFOOTBALL is irrelevant, as futsal is a different sport than football. It is no different than saying a cricket player need not meet NFOOTBALL to be notable. The rest of my argument as to why he is notable should be abundantly clear. You are free to disagree, of course, but don't try to put words in my mouth. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to disagree with your argument because you also admitted that the references you provided are routine and don't meet GNG. Which means he is not notable. – Michael (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I consider the sources non-routine because they result from play in an international tournament. The general principle of WP:ATH is that international play confers notability. Granted, there is no futsal category, but I think the generally principle should still apply. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as @ThaddeusB: notes WP:NFOOTBALL does not really apply here, so we need to turn to WP:GNG - which this article does not meet. Giant Snowman 12:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, which does not cover futsal, and in the absence of significant coverage, fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He does have 9 international caps (in futsal). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. NFOOTY does not cover Futsal so those international appearances do not confer notability. Fenix down (talk) 15:59, 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 delete. Nakon 00:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Cowan[edit]

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

References given are to cases Cowan participated in, not to Cowan himself. Aside from that, easily fails notability. Buffalutheran (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both the well-accepted general rules for notability of lawyers and my specific rules for attorneys. His career appears to have been very run of the mill - assistant county prosecutor, donor to causes, trials, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic lawyer. Nothing to see here. Jcmcc450 (talk) 17:05, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClauseMatch[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Promotional? Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a case of too soon for this company. One of the two sources is a passing mention only. Fails WP:CORP and doesn't have the depth of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I authored the original article. The company has won multiple awards for its technology and is in the same category as a number of other fintech companies which have Wikipedia entries. What would it take for it to be considered eligible for a wikipedia page?Sprintercourse (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what are the multiple awards and what sources do you have to support the awards being given.Flat Out let's discuss it 05:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged herein, although the discussion is slightly leaning toward deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rok Studios[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The references given do not discuss the subject in detail, just links to films produced by the studio. I've also searched google, but no reliable sources are found discussing the subject. Maybe it can be merged with iROKOtv? Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ The umbrella body of the netflix of Africa looks notable to me. sources exists.Terriblechristian (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Note to closing admin: This user has been blocked for sock puppetry[reply]

Struck !vote from sock. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as spam. Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any sources online that discusses the studio in significant detail. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep. While Nigerian film and television is not well-covered in the west or by Wikipedia, the information in the article is verifiable and the ROK has enough mention and and it's works enough commentary to meet WP:ORG through that guide stating "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". It's a suitable stub if kept neutral, and the company itself can give us details about itself under WP:ABOUTSELF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Relatively new, but coverage appears to be expanding enough to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @VMS Mosaic: Can you kindly provide reliable and independent sources that discuss this subject?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:19, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Moss[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, has not appeared on any national music chart, has not received a gold record, and has not released an album on a major record label. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hanalei (band) add ref consequenceofsound Jonpatterns (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:39, 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 no consensus. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular action has emerged regarding the article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angel and Apostle[edit]

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

I couldn't find any professional reviews for this book, so I'm not convinced it meets WP:NBOOK. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author doesn't currently have an article but she is probably notable, based on the entry in Contemporary Authors that indicates she's won multiple awards for some of her other books. [64] As far as this is one concerned, I found reviews in Publishers Weekly [65], the Chicago Tribune (from the Baltimore Sun) [66], Booklist (paywalled) [67], and Library Journal (starred review) [68], and a substantive interview in the Portland Press Herald [69]. I'd prefer to see an article about the author that includes coverage of this book as well as the others, but I can't say it's non-notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, does appear to be popular but reviews may not be WP:SCHOLARSHIP or WP:RELIABLE eg.^[1]^[2]^[3]

^ "DEBORAH NOYES ANGEL AND APOSTLE". www.unbridledbooks.com. Retrieved 9 March 2015.
^ "Angel and Apostle". www.publishersweekly.com. Retrieved 9 March 2015.
^ "ANGEL AND APOSTLE". www.bookreporter.com. Retrieved 9 March 2015.

Move to Deborah Noyes, who is notable, From WorldCat[70], she is notable as an author and editor. she has edited two very widely used anthologies , each with thousands of library holdings; she has written a variety of non fiction found in many hundreds of libraries; she has also written an other work like this, based on an Edith Wharton novel--both that and this are in over 600 libraries. Current fiction aimed at young people can best be judged by library holdings: libraries buy what is reviewed and what is asked for. this particular article is an example of the rather low quality book reviews we get at wikipedia, emphasizing non-encyclopedic plot details, but the notability of the work cannot be presumed from the inadequacy of the article. If this were the only work, I'd say to delete, but when there are multiple other works, combining them in an author article is a helpful way of handling them. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this particular article is an example of the rather low quality book reviews we get at wikipedia, emphasizing non-encyclopedic plot details – there is some commentary in the book reviews.
Example from Publishers Weekly:
While Hawthorne's Pearl serves his novel primarily as a symbol of innocence, provoking contemplation of morality and social organization in his adult characters, Noyes, a young adult writer with a penchant for the historical and gothic (Gothic!: Ten Original Dark Tales ), writes a Pearl of flesh and wit, who both dotes upon her stoic mother and despises her for their status as pariahs.
...
Noyes engages with atmospheric charms of time and place, and though the major turns of the novel are predictable, she delivers an ending revelation that would surprise Hawthorne himself.
And the Chicago Tribune:
There are some flaws in Noyes' re-creation of Hawthorne's characters, notably Pearl's too-adult persona when she is still quite a child. And one does miss the defiant Hester of Hawthorne's invective.
Nevertheless, Noyes, a young-adult writer in her first foray into the grown-up novel, achieves a creditable and credible sequel that does no disservice to Hawthorne and whose deft telling provides a thoroughly engaging story with an utterly stunning ending that affords the reader much to ponder.
Cunard (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge or move per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Arxiloxos' excellent research. The reviews from Publishers Weekly, the Chicago Tribune (from the Baltimore Sun), Booklist, and Library Journal demonstrate that the book is independently notable of its author Deborah Noyes, so I oppose a merge or move.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Angel and Apostle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which says:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. ...
Cunard (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:08, 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 delete. Arrrrr! We'll make this article walk the plank, arrrrrr! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:2DAB because it is a disambiguation page that consists of only one primary topic and one second item.

It has a rather extensive "See also" section but again, that section is entirely addressed by the first article, making it a mere WP:CFORK. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That hits it right on the head. bd2412 T 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First thing first: Nominator (Codename Lisa) is wrong! The first entry in the page is "Piracy in the Caribbean"; the primary topic is "Pirates of the Caribbean", which is not even listed in this page. But I still say "Delete" because it makes no difference. Every single entry in this page besides "Piracy in the Caribbean" is already listed in "Pirates of the Caribbean" article, including everything under "§ See also" and Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom. So, the net result is that there are only two entries to disambiguate. A hatnote would suffice. Fleet Command (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's not a WP:2DAB. There are three topics here: Pirates of the Caribbean, ~~Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom~~, the boat in the 2005-06 Volvo Ocean Race and Piracy in the Caribbean. Tavix | Talk 03:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom is part of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, not an independent topic. bd2412 T 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that now. The disambiguation made that confusing because the book is not listed with the rest of the franchise. Changing my vote to Delete. Tavix | Talk 03:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I went ahead and fixed the disambiguation so that the two topics are clearly shown, with the book, boat, and everything else that's a part of the franchise in the see also. Hopefully this will clear up any further confusion. Tavix | Talk 03:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Meh, whatever - the page in question disambiguates between multiple subjects and articles, many of which are independently and individually notable while still being part of the same broad franchise. That the books and games and whatnot are derived from the same franchise doesn't necessarily mean that someone won't be looking for a specific film, or book or game. Imagine you're looking for the second film and you know it is the second film but you don't know it was called Dead Man's Chest. You end up on that page and can quickly work it out. The aim, here, is to make life easier for the readers so that they can find what they are looking for. By my count, it disambiguates 14 different articles, all with similar-enough titles that disambiguation is necessary. That all of the "sub-articles" appear in the franchise article is irrelevant, in my view. Beyond all that, I think there would be value in a specific disambiguation for "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "piracy in the Caribbean". Given that the subject of the films derives from the historical subject, determining a "primary" topic is problematic. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely redundant to the existing Pirates of the Caribbean article, which lists Piracy in the Caribbean in the hatnote and all of the other meanings on the page. bd2412 T 16:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I think you've missed my point, but it doesn't matter. I think WP:TWODABS should be ignored where it doesn't serve our readers or when the primary topic is difficult to determine, which is kind of what that guideline says anyway. As someone who works in this topic area a lot, the difficulty of separating the two is a daily annoyance and I can only imagine what that would be like for our readers. Anything we can do to help, we should. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he has. Ignore TWODABS. Still delete because of CFORK. Also, please stop abusing "serve our readers" phrase; you are implying that those who don't agree with you are goons. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't missed your point, Stalwart, your point is just wrong. No one in their right mind should expect to find Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides or Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom merely by typing in "Pirates of the Caribbean"; frankly, these partial title matches should not even be included on a disambiguation page. That is why we have a franchise page. bd2412 T 20:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not "abusing" anything nor "implying" anything. I said it was my opinion and it remains my opinion. That you don't share that opinion doesn't make my having it an implication that you are a "goon". I explained my reasons for my way of thinking. I use this page more as a "reader" than I do an "editor", but in the course of my editing. I also don't think the "primary" article does a good job of covering the subject. But others disagree and have decided that the best way of building consensus is to suggest that my opinions constitute a personal attack. So I'm out; do with it what you will. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to do much of use as a disambig page, and the massive "see also" is just weird. Artw (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scuttle, matey, but not due to the nom's reasoning. There are plenty of entries for a proper dab page, but they (and more) are already listed in the main page, which is itself a sort of super-dab page. The only exception is the boat, which can go in the hatnote. Hence, this is just plain redundant. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ For a navigational guide like this the important thing is whether it is helpful to readers, not whether it meets or fails to meet some technical criterion. This page is helpful to readers. However, Pirates of the Caribbean is even more helpful (as I am looking at it now) and more in keeping with WP's general house style. Hence this "disambiguation page" is redundant and is best deleted to avoid the difficulty of having to maintain two extremely similar pages. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect for reasons below. Thincat (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Pirates of the Caribbean really shouldn't be a "super disambiguation" in the first place. It really should be about the story, the main characters, the development of the concept into the various media, relation to historical people, places, vessels and events. Not much of that is there now and instead we have a long list of derivatives and so we're looking at deleting a helpful disambig page as "redundant". But if the primary article did its job, this one wouldn't be redundant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes a lot of sense to me. If the Pirates of the Caribbean article was developed appropriately all this stuff might be excessive simply dangling from the stern. There's a huge navbox as well, Template:Pirates of the Caribbean. So all this could do with sorting out properly. I'll change to redirect though (and maybe a change of name?) simply to preserve this material in its edit history in case something along the lines of this "disambiguation" might be usefully spun off eventually. Thincat (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit on at the moment (IRL) but if people are willing to have this re-listed again, I could commit some time and energy to reworking the "primary" article along those lines. If it isn't up the scratch, by all means delete the disambig. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: This: 'Except that Pirates of the Caribbean really shouldn't be a "super disambiguation" in the first place.' Says who? And so what? First, Wikipedia is free to index its contents however it wishes. Second, even if it did contain "the story, the main characters, the [~snip~] and events", it would have been set index page and made a dab page absolutely unnecessary. Here is an excellent example: Final Fantasy and Bourne (film series). Fleet Command (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be disagreeing about something but I'm not too sure what about. The (rather good) examples you give don't seem to be "super disambiguation" pages, nor are they set indexes. All I was suggesting was that if (if) a page of substantial continuous prose was produced for the main article, the "classified" section (which might look a bit like the page we're discussing) might be possibly spun-off – I don't know. Anyway, I've now voted redirect, possibly with a change of name and I'm reasonably happy with that idea. Thincat (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not exactly the standard way to do it,but it's useful as it is. WP:IAR is the principle. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: All content forks are useful; they are deleted because an equally useful page exists. Pirates of the Caribbean is equally useful. Fleet Command (talk) 18:37, 29 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 01:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cogobuy[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 12:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMHO this seems more promotional than anything so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cogobuy is $5.39 billion dollar company and one of largest electronics company in china see the financial times http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=400:HKG Alain Garner talk 12:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Help I am new to wikipedia and am happy to make any changes to keep wikipedia an impartial and outstanding service, I believe Cogobuy should be represented on wikipedia as it is one of the biggest electronics company in china and listed on the Honk Kong and New York stock exchange, I thank you for your help Alain Garner talk 12:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia .... Not a website advertisement service, There are a million and one ways to advertise your company and this place certainly isn't one of them. –Davey2010^Talk

Response This is an Encyclopedia which in my opinion is the right place for Cogobuy to be included, its not my intention to create an advert rather to provide in partial information about one of the worlds biggest companies in english. Cogobuy is listed in Chinese encyclopaedias like Baidu (see link) however there is no english information making it difficult for english speakers to find out basic information about a publicly traded $5.39 billion dollar company. Like many other publicly listed companies on the New York Stock Exchange included in Wikipedia Cogobuy has many english clients and shareholders who have equity in the company. How is Cogogby different to other similar and smaller sized US and Chinese based companies currently included in Wikipedia? why should the general public, investors and potential clients not be able to find basic impartial information in an encyclopedia like Pegatron (see link). Skyworth (see link) TCL (see link) SVA (see link) ZTE (see link) etc... –

Baidu - http://baike.baidu.com/link?url=ZNkBxLFppXq2JF7jIzLV7nxVPtEw2PPLJjsdMWzw8maIGcOyhahYOYV-Zc6JJ80I3RL3VRr_ZYy7R9Q_X8Oqv_
Pegatron - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegatron
Skyworth - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyworth
ZTE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZTE
TCL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCL_Corporation
SVA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVA_Group
Changhong - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changhong

Alain Garner talk 10:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedia article's can't be used as cites unfortunately. –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update No problem, I have added some direct links as well for you
Baidu - http://baike.baidu.com/link?url=ZNkBxLFppXq2JF7jIzLV7nxVPtEw2PPLJjsdMWzw8maIGcOyhahYOYV-Zc6JJ80I3RL3VRr_ZYy7R9Q_X8Oqv_
Pegatron - http://www.pegatroncorp.com
Skyworth - http://www.skyworth.com/en/
ZTE - http://www.zteusa.com
TCL - http://www.tcl.tk
SVA -http://www.sva.com.cn
Changhong - http://www.changhong.com

Alain Garner talk 09:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately they mean nothing, You need to provide reliable sources, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update The linkes are not really the point, the point is many similar and smaller companies are listed on wikipedia because they have many english clients and shareholders who have equity in the company. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia that provides impartial basic english information about those companies and I do not see how Cogobuy differs from them. I have also included links and references to the page with major news outlets that Cogobuy is featured in such as, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg, UBS ect –Alain Garner talk 03:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could discuss this all day but I think we all have better things to do , –Davey2010^Talk 03:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article reads like a marketing and promotional piece at the moment. I'd err towards delete as it stands, but if the company is truly notable, perhaps the author can rewrite the article to better demonstrate this?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "...dedicated to serving..." WP:ADMASQ. Pax 19:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:TNT - probably notable and worthy of an article, by its sheer financial weight, but the article is awful.

Message for @Alaingarner:
First of all, welcome to wikipedia (abbreviated WP), we appreciate your will to edit here. Nonetheless, there are "rules" (guidelines, in fact) to follow when editing WP. It is normal that you do not know them at first, but please listen to others who do. Do not take this deletion discussion as a personal attack; we judge articles, not people. Guidelines are numerous, but in this case, you should read a bit about: WP:BURDEN: the person that puts up information is responsible for providing adequate sources for it; oppositely, removing material that is not sourced can be done without trying to find a source (although it is discouraged). WP:GNG and WP:CORP: even if wikipedia space is virtually (ha ha) illimited, not everything deserves and encyclopedia article. Only "notable" events, companies, people etc. get an article. What "notable" means is discussed at length in the guidelines; GNG applies to anything while CORP is specifically for companies. WP:PSTS: Sources should be carefully selected, in view of the statement they support. For instance, a company's website can be quoted to show who is their CEO, but it certainly should not be trusted about the latest controversy about their dumping of oil in a river. WP:OTHERSTUFF: analogy reasoning between articles (such as "XXX is less notable than YYY, yet is has a page, so YYY should have a page too") is usually not valid. WP is very vast and very incomplete, hence many (probably most) articles are violating the guidelines in some way; there is no priority to fix 'this' rather than 'that', so when 'that' is under consideration, do not talk about 'this'. WP:COI: if you have a personal interest in the subject of an article, it is best to avoid editing it. If you are working for a company, if you go to golf with their CEO, if they killed your parents in an industrial accident, or if you oppose them because of your political or religious views, your judgement is most likely clouded. Even if you try your best to stay neutral, it can transpire.

Message for @Alaingarner:

First of all, welcome to wikipedia (abbreviated WP), we appreciate your will to edit here. Nonetheless, there are "rules" (guidelines, in fact) to follow when editing WP. It is normal that you do not know them at first, but please listen to others who do. Do not take this deletion discussion as a personal attack; we judge articles, not people.

Guidelines are numerous, but in this case, you should read a bit about:

WP:BURDEN: the person that puts up information is responsible for providing adequate sources for it; oppositely, removing material that is not sourced can be done without trying to find a source (although it is discouraged).
WP:GNG and WP:CORP: even if wikipedia space is virtually (ha ha) illimited, not everything deserves and encyclopedia article. Only "notable" events, companies, people etc. get an article. What "notable" means is discussed at length in the guidelines; GNG applies to anything while CORP is specifically for companies.
WP:PSTS: Sources should be carefully selected, in view of the statement they support. For instance, a company's website can be quoted to show who is their CEO, but it certainly should not be trusted about the latest controversy about their dumping of oil in a river.
WP:OTHERSTUFF: analogy reasoning between articles (such as "XXX is less notable than YYY, yet is has a page, so YYY should have a page too") is usually not valid. WP is very vast and very incomplete, hence many (probably most) articles are violating the guidelines in some way; there is no priority to fix 'this' rather than 'that', so when 'that' is under consideration, do not talk about 'this'.
WP:COI: if you have a personal interest in the subject of an article, it is best to avoid editing it. If you are working for a company, if you go to golf with their CEO, if they killed your parents in an industrial accident, or if you oppose them because of your political or religious views, your judgement is most likely clouded. Even if you try your best to stay neutral, it can transpire.

Tigraan (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with clean up, and no objection to WP:TNT to nuke out the promotionalism. Independent sources are available especially among the Chinese language press [71][72][73] (though mostly as a stock). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks I am new to writing Wikipedia articles and wanted to thank you all for your help, I will have another go at writing the page and improving it and intend to pay back your kindness buy contributing to other articles and helping other new users, Thanks Alain –Alain Garner talk 0:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A company's capitalization value does not make it notable. Unfortunately, company profiles and stock information don't qualify as significant coverage (WP:GNG). The sources currently in the article are all press releases or company profiles. Presence as a publicly traded stock also does not grant notability (WP:LISTED). ― Padenton |☎ 01:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are correct, but I have a hard time believing that no notability sources exist for a $5b non-banking company. The financial size may be irrelevant for GNG, but not for journalists that produce GNG material; I suspect there are plenty of sources in Chinese. Tigraan (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point of discussio here is not the companies notability but the fact that the article is an advertisement. And okay, a notable company would not feel the need to advertise in an encyclopaedia... The Banner talk 13:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, Padenton is disputing the notability. I agree with the advertising problem (hence my WP:TNT !vote). Tigraan (talk) 13:47, 24 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jodilly Pendre[edit]

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

Prod tag removed that an article was created a day earlier, so it fails ~~WP:N and WP:BIO~~ WP:BLP1E. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per comment above, it is now changed per policies on WP:BLP1E. ApprenticeFan ^work 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where in WP:BLP1E says that removing a prod tag a day after its creation is prohibited? –H T D 14:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:N and WP:BIO states that the removal of the prod tag means it is a violation of these two pages? –H T D 16:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, while I could see the logic behind WP:BLP1E, one must excuse the non-primary reliable sources which give significant coverage to the individual by GMA, InterAksyon, and ABS-CBN. Although I would like there to be stronger sources, the subject has received significant coverage outside of AsNTM, and thus shouldn't be deleted unless a stronger case can be made.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are the 3 largest TV networks in the Philippines. You could no longer find stronger sources than those. –H T D 02:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate Preacher's Site[edit]

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

Promotional article on website for preachers fails WP:GNG, only reference is a religious news site article from 2000, have not found any significant coverage in WP:RS. Vrac (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the article is actually rather critical of the website, it is rather silly to call it a "promotional article". Did you actually read it? Regardless, toen is not a reason for deletion. Christianity Today is a reliable source in general (editorial staff, print magazine in business since 1956) and certainly a reliable source for religious information, so shouldn't be written off. That combined with a good deal of book coverage - "DesperatePreacher""Desperate+Preacher%27s" - should establish notability. The person who requested undeletion suggested reusing the material in a more general article (on "sermon plagiarism"/reusing sermons) which has attracted a significant amount of debate in RS. That is also a viable option, although like I said this website appears to be independently notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha Welcome trolls! Vrac (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hun? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not your hun. Vrac (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Commentators/contributors, Having read what ThaddeusB wrote above, I'm in agreement. The DesperatePreacher.com website is much more notable to "insiders" of church bureaucracy and management than it is to the general public or even to general "churchgoers." That factor alone perhaps can add some "mystique" to its perhaps perceived lack of notability. I have not tried to get Google search results regarding the website until now, as ThaddeusB suggests doing. I was rather surprised to see the listing of various books on Google that have made reference to the website. There is "notability" out there, if it's looked for. The website was even highlighted on the David Letterman Show, which the website itself has used to it's own benefit by referencing. (Here's the link to the David Letterman Show reference, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nou7MH0WpdY - or search on YouTube for "Desperate Preacher's Website gets a plug on the Letterman Show") It would be nice though if the page could be enhanced more, with references and comments from more "third party" voices and sources. Perhaps I could even be one of those "sources" with my website www.ClergySecrets.com?? lol -------- I've also noticed that some external links on Wikipedia's "Desperate Preacher's Site" page that concern articles about "sermon plagiarism/reusing sermons" have been recently deleted, presumably because they were not directly concerned with the website. Since that has happened, I'm also interested in the idea of creating a Wikipedia page that directly concerns "sermon plagiarism"/reusing sermons, and including additional reference to "Desperate Preacher's Site" there. --WarrenVitcenda (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More articles about "sermon plagiarism" and DesperatePreacher.com.

1) This links to an article about a resignation due to "sermon plagiarism." http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/091000/religion_20040910014.shtml#.VPe0ri6mErg

2) The Charlotte Observer newspaper also has an archived opinion article that references and discusses the DesperatePreacher.com website as follows: Charlotte Observer - April 13, 2002; "INTERNET INSPIRATION FOR PREACHERS: I hate to burst your bubble, but the inspiration for that crackerjack sermon you heard the other morning might not have come straight from God. DesperatePreacher.com - a Web site filled with sermon samples and ideas - might have helped. The Rev. Tom Tate of Plaza Presbyterian joked with me at a clergy lunch that DesperatePreacher.com doesn't begin to describe him on those Sunday mornings when he's sweating over a sermon he wishes were better. That's when he's..." -------WarrenVitcenda (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) The San Diego Union Tribune also had a quite long article concerning "sermon plagiarism/copying." http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061125/news_1c25sermons.html -------WarrenVitcenda (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be "just barely enough," but there are now two articles referenced for the topic to counter the original criticism that only one article was being used. It would seem that the current presentation on Wikipedia meets both the "verifiability" and "no original research" requirements that are needed to remain part of Wikipedia.--WarrenVitcenda (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a "David Letterman video" question though. Is it ok to add the link for the YouTube video reference where mention of the "Desperate Preacher's Site" was made on the Late Show with David Letterman? How could that be "properly" done?? This is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nou7MH0WpdY Thanks. Warren Vitcenda --WarrenVitcenda (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Letterman show can be cited. See ((cite video)). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, did you watch the video? There is nothing about it that would qualify it as an acceptable source. A five-second joking reference while a talk show host chats with an audience member is hardly an encyclopedic source. Vrac (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a technical question about how to cite a video, which I answered... Obviously the only thing it could be used to support is that the site was referenced by Letterman, which may or may not be worth mentioning in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the video would be a copyright violation. Vrac (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ELNEVER, you cannot give the URL to the YouTube video because it likely infringes on the copyright owner of that Letterman episode. You could cite the episode without the URL but it's not helpful in establishing notability as required by WP:GNG. As Vrac points out, an audience member's random comment is not a reliable source. Msnicki (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" of the reference to the "Desperate Preacher's Site" in the David Letterman video is hardly "random" or "just from an audience member." The source's name was given by the source himself in the video as "Jimmy Only," from Manhasset, NY; and he said that he is a "minister." Pastor Only continues to pastor to this day, in Manhasset, NY, at the same congregation. (Pastor Only's congregational webpage is at: http://www.uccmanhasset.org/#!/chxk.) Additionally, the WP:GNG says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." So what is meant by "trivial?" Merriam-Webster says that "trivial" means (1) "common place/ordinary," and (2) "of little worth or importance." To the contrary of "trivial," Pastor Only's mention of "Desperate Preacher's Site" signifies the weight that the website has had on the inner circles of "church bureaucracy," which goes hand-in-hand with the main articles on the "Desperate Preacher's Site" page on Wikipedia. Does it matter at all, as well, that the WP:NNC says that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article?" Does that mean what it says? WP:NNC goes on to say that the principle of due weight is the guiding principle. Due Weight on Wikipeida says "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." ------ So, regarding the David Letterman video and the seemingly broad general standard of a "see also" section, adding a mention of the David Letterman video in a "see also" section (without the URL) would seem potentially acceptable to Wikipedia just by the "due weight" of the source of the comment about "Desperate Preacher's Site" in the David Letterman video - someone who is an ordained and practicing minister and who identified himself (and who ostensibly has more "due weight" than what "flat-earth-believers" do for inclusion in a Wikipedia page about "Earth," but whose mention is evidently allowed).--WarrenVitcenda (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep never mind the subscription program of this site, this website has been around since 1996 and offered interactive resources in terms of discussion forums for the Revised Common Lectionary that were innovative for its time. These discussion forums are still being continued today--a free resource, no subscription required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkarin (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — Bkarin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 01:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too Phat[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO. no notable albums or singles. awards are not major LibStar (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passed GNG. Sources are easily available on the web. Just need to search harder. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 18:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please provide actual evidence of sources as per WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Straits Times has dozens of articles about this group: [74], [75]. See also AllMusic. The initializer (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your first search includes a lot of non relevant hits as it includes any coverage with the word phat. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't get the quotes to work on the Wikipedia editor. But there are 100 news articles that mention the group here. It's not a garage band. The initializer (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

coverage is more about band member Joe Flizzow and often quoted as a former member of the group. LibStar (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be keep. Too Phat is an essence to Malaysian hip hop scene. I grow up listening to their music. Tafeax (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above, per GNG, covered in Billboard [76], [77] and in several books (including several pages on Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows by Alastair Pennycook, which were later cited multiple times in books and publications), among other things. Historically notable, "And then along came a group called Too Phat, and they really kind of changed the scope of hip-hop in Malaysia. They were the first to combine hip-hop with both traditional Malay sounds and the Malay language." [78]. More than what I expected, considering I just checked for English-language sources. Also, I don't see how coverage about band member Joe Flizzow should be excluded from the count, as long as the article covers his solo career as well. Cavarrone 08:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BAND. Additional (paywalled) sources include: [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], many more. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Kamerman[edit]

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

Unremarkable animator with small career on one show. Her book doesn't appear to be notable either. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability requirements. Nakon 04:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I removed this page on accident and have immediately restored the page and talk page. Apologies. Nakon 01:52, 28 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 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Lobethal[edit]

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

Bottom line: The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Being a survivor of Auschwitz does not confer automatic notability (through if this is deleted, it should be redirected to and summary-merged with List of victims and survivors of Auschwitz. I tried looking for reliable sources and I see nothing; some mentions in passing, yes, but not even a dedicated biography I was able to find anywhere. The fact that the article claims the potential hoax of The Man who Broke into Auschwitz as its main source does not inspire confidence, either. Ping User:Poeticbent - I'd appreciate your thoughts here! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of victims and survivors of Auschwitz. The story is most likely drawn from a fictitious Holocaust memoir mentioned in the article, with an i-link to an eye-opening controversy. There might be a grain of truth in his bio, but not enough to justify this entry. Poeticbent talk 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No enough coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 26 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Kirsch[edit]

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

I don't see any significant accomplishments that satisfy WP:BIO. The Czech Wikipedia article has the same sparse information. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 09:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 09:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A thesis by Bc. Radek Píč (p. 41-43, submitted in 2013 at the Masarykova univerzita in Brno) claims that in 1947, Edmund Kirsch (born 16 November 1866 in Brno - so it seems to be the same person) and his son Richard were sentenced in Žamberk for their alleged participation in the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia. The thesis says that their case was widely watched by media. However, there are no citations pointing to relevant articles in the newspapers published in the 1940s. Since 1893, Edmund Kirsch owned the company Vonwiller a spol., an important factory in Žamberk (Žamberské listy, No. 14/2014, a local newspaper). I would say it's rather a local history. I can't link the sources as they are blacklisted on Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 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 no consensus. Nakon 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Alberto Sulú Canché[edit]

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

This deceased person is reported as perpetrated some pretty horrendous crimes based upon questionable sources. I removed one source which was a blog post but the other three sources are non-subjective newspaper stories. I really don't know about this article and would like input from others with more experience with biographies. I can't find mentions of court decisions with guilty sentences. One newspaper said he confessed but without quoting the man. Bfpage |leave a message 13:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Covered in reputable Mexican press, such as La Jornada, but doesn't seem to have made much impact. 2x La Jornada articles, and 1 in La Crónica de Hoy. Was picked up by some international press, but not especially notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only questioned the notability AFTER reading the newspaper articles. They seemed to present only one point of view. If this were about a deceased american and the crimes happened in the US, there would have to be some kind of information to provide a modicum of balance. I guess what I am saying is this: is it up to Wikipedia to 'report' that this person is guilty of all these things based upon newspaper stories that do not provide a balanced point of view?

Bfpage |leave a message 11:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to Wikipedia to present a balanced view of the sources. If the sources are saying the person is guilty, to accurately represent the sources, Wikipedia should be presenting what is reported, in as neutral a fashion as possible e.g. "it was reported by Mexican newspaper la Jornada that so-and-so was found guilty of such-a-crime".

If there is no verdict, as seems to be the case here, it is a bit trickier, and I would say that without a verdict there probably shouldn't be an article without a lot more sources establishing notability. Someone being accused of a crime isn't necessarily notable.Simon Burchell (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was thinking-I am somewhat concerned that this person, whoever he was, is now going to go down in history as described in the article about him. Accusations from newspapers probably are not notable. The person was never found guilty even though the papers accuse him of guilt. The articles are poorly written and are heavily editorialized.

Bfpage |leave a message 13:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - for now. I can not say that this article should be deleted or redirected etc. It seems that some notability is involved.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three (alleged) victims isn't a particularly significant tally for a murderer. Pax 03:18, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Ainley[edit]

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

Fails WP:RLN Mattlore (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only in the most unusual circumstances (ie significant coverage in reliable sources) would a youth-team rugby league player be notable. This is not one of them. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable rugby league player. APerson (talk!) 18:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:34, 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 Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. Nakon 01:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andenne Bears[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local football team in a Belgian town of 25,000 persons. Finding no sources to indicate that this club satisfies WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be fine with a redirect to the parent article on the league. Cbl62 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it's a bit tricky and a bit marginal. Little comes up when you WP:GOOGLETEST under "Andenne Bears" but you need to search in French, where they are known as "Les Bears d'Andenne" (note: NOT "les Ours d'Andenne", the literal French translation). They get some coverage that meets WP:SECONDARY from Namur provincial TV (see [89]) - a respectable secondary source, but only just - and a lot of coverage from L'Avenir, a regional but longstanding Belgian daily paper (see, for instance,[90]). Some stuff may come up in Flemish/Dutch too but I'm not so good at that. Any Flemish speakers like to weigh in? Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Boleyn and the fact that I am not seeing significant coverage in secondary sources. Tavix | Talk 23:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Non-notable amateur American football team based in a small town in Belgium. Routine coverage of this team does exist, with local small town coverage in the team's home region, but it is in the nature of routine game coverage that one might expect to see for high school teams in their hometown newspapers in the United States. The coverage is not sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources -- especially outside the town's home region. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Please noted that my !vote has been changed to "merge and redirect" immediately below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of this team and the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content in this article that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever decision is reached here shouldn't be for just one team in the league. The same concerns apply to each of the Brussels Tigers, Grez-Doiceau Fighting Turtles, Liège Monarchs, Waterloo Warriors, Charleroi Coal Miners, Tournai Phoenix, and Luxembourg Steelers. Also, L'Avenir isn't a local paper, it covers substantially the whole of Francophone Belgium. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't relevant to whether this team meet the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines; however, I've looked over the other pages and taken them to AfD individually. Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Given that foreign language coverage does exist (although precious little in English), how would you feel about a merge and redirect compromise for all of the teams in this league. That would allow us to preserve a 50 to 100-word paragraph of content for each team on the league page, with each of the current team articles redirecting there. How's that for reasonable? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to vote on this, one way or the other, but my gut feeling on this is that we really need some French speakers to chime in here in order to be able to evaluate this properly. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: In so far as any amateur sport teams really merit articles, most of these AfDs could be rejected with a cursory search of google as part of due diligence. see 1, 2 etc. American football is hardly big nationally, but the fact that these teams are listed (with full profiles) on L'Avenir (a respected regional newspaper) is easily enough to qualify as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Ditto, the town's official website and La Meuse (another regional newspaper)... —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: You apparently have a very different concept of what qualifies as "significant coverage" per the general notability guidelines; of the two links you cite above, one is a club listing on a city website, and the other is a brief article about the amateur football league in a local newspaper, which mentions the subject team. Neither of these qualifies as "significant coverage." If we used your understanding of "significant coverage" as the standard for determining the notability of amateur sports clubs, virtually every high school football team in the United States would be notable per GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1:, most of them do... The interpretation of notability guidelines is always more flexible for American articles than for others in my experience. I raise you Brooklyn Celtic as just one example of this. Anyway, instead of scoring points, however, why don't we attempt to seek a compromise - perhaps the entire series noted above could be merged into a single article, say Life of American Football teams of Belgium or American Football in Belgium? Would that not be more constructive? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: You misunderstand my motives. I have no interest in "scoring points," but I am stating the obvious about the perceived meaning of "significant coverage." I am a regular participant in sports-related AfDs, and the notability guidelines are routinely misapplied on this basis. The teams in this league are marginally notable at best, and non-notable at worst; it's a close call, either way. That's why I have changed my !vote from "delete" to "merge and redirect"; the logical merge target is the parent league article, Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique, where virtually all of the content of this article is already duplicated. A brief paragraph for each team could be added there, and the team articles redirected there. That's my alternative proposal to outright deletion; I think it's a pretty good one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As I say, I really doubt that these articles are of practical use anyway, so I think your solution seems quite fair. I have modified my vote. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I change my suggestion from delete to merge and redirect, Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 27 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 determines that the article fails GNG Nakon 01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Savage[edit]

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

Prod tag removed without commentary, so here we are. The subject fals to meet either the WP:GNG or the WP:PORNBIO criteria. The latter was once much looser (pun unintended) than it is now, and the subject's multiple AVN nominations and one win for a group award no longer meet the guide's criteria. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this one would have the potential to pass WP:PORNBIO#3 and WP:NACTOR if her roles in Savage's films listed in the article, particularly The Locals and Cut, were significant and if such films (currently both red-linked) were notable. Leaning towards delete, but if such films are notable it could even be a bordline keep. Cavarrone 19:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. For "The Locals", the subject is in the 11th position of 12 credited cast members; IMDB doesn't even list "Cut" at all. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but the official poster for Locals (2012) lists her fourth not eleventh. We do not usually depend on the (unreliable) IMDB, which in this case lists the complete film cast alphabetically. And to expand on Cavarrone... away from porn, Angie has actually had roles in many "mainstream" projects: The Family (2011) as Carmen, The Locals (2012) as named character "Bambi Lynn Taylor", Piranhaconda (2012) as named character "Debbie", Celebrity Sex Tape (2012) as named character "Anna Williams", and LizardMan: The Terror of the Swamp (2012) as "Actress" (an alphbetical cast list)... as well as mainstream television projects: Hypnotika (2013 TV movie), Monster of the Nudist Colony (2013 TV Movie), LearningTown (2013 TV series), Sexy Wives Sindrome (2011 TV movie), Busty Coeds vs. Lusty Cheerleaders (2011 TV movie), and Hot and Mean TV series (2009-2010) , among her non-hardcore porn but still quite sexy horror career. Apparently her multiple AVN 'Crossover Star of the Year' nominations and her XBIZ nomination for 'Crossover Star of the Year' were merited. Might you care to re-consider those films you did not consider and not dismiss possibly significant mainstream roles simply because her last name happens to not happen begin with an "A" or "B"? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on that basis this is a Clare fail of PORNBIO so should be deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: the comment by Tarc to which you responded was improperly researched before it was made. Care to reconsider? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do yourself a favor; unless you were in my house looking over my shoulder at the time, do not lie about my actions while filing this AfD. As stated below, routine man bites dog coverage in local sources is observed, but discounted. There wewre two articles in two local papers about a local teacher who lost a selectman election last week by 3 votes. By the low-hanging fruit mentality of the all-but-forgotten Article Rescue Squad, he'd qualify for an article here, which is absurd. Significant, in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources is the standard, a standard which this porn starlet does not meet. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One need not look over a shoulder to logically determine that either research was done or it was not. If not done, then I did it and you're welcome. But if it was done, it is not a lie to logically conclude that a conscious decision must have been made to not disclose. And if research was done, there was no effort made to mention any of her non-porn work from the time after she left that industry. THAT inadvertent omission could taint an fair consideration of the topic being discussed and needed to be addressed. So, my lengthy response above was toward a dismissive reference made toward an alphabetical cast list from an "unreliable" source... and to address anyone declaring her role as minor based upon the "unreliable" source listing her alphabetically as 11th out of 12, when the official poster lists her 4th out of 12. And this former porn star does have the requisite significant coverage and peer recognition... but only in those genre sources deemed suitable enough for her former profession, and not suitable for the rest of the film industry. For the disliked porn profession, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT are inexplicably and repeatedly ignored in favor of the dismantled WP:PORNBIO, and WP:GNG is ignored because the sources are porn genre media, rather than mainstream press. If the expected research was done, what was also unmentioned is that she does have the featured roles in multiple mainstream projects as required by even the dismantled PORNBIO's prong #3... often being in the first four cast being credited... in non-porn horror projects that may have the coverage to be be notable enough for articles. Their being redlinks is not automatically non-notable... redlinks simply mean an article is unwritten as of yet.

Personally, and specially as it causes way too many headaches and far too much dissension and drama, I think PORNBIO should be rendered historic. Actors should all be treated equally and by the same set of measures. We can and should fall back to the applicable WP:ENT and WP:ANYBIO. IF we were looking at this as a bio of a young actress and discussing only her works since 2011, and not discussing her in the context of the career she has left behind, WP:ENT might be seen as just met... and this discussion might not have become so devolved due to that former career.

If this is deleted, An improved article might be worth a return... an article dealing with she and her non-porn activities, rather than concentrating so heavily on her old. Thank you, 06:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep - win in AVN Award. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Subtropical-man:, let's step though this very clearly & carefully. We have A) The subject won "Best All-Girl Sex Scene", and B) WP:PORNBIO Part 1 which states "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." Can you re-evaluate A in light of B and state what policy or guideline your opinion to keep rests upon? Tarc (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he considered her multiple AVN and her XBIZ nominations for 'Crossover Star of the Year' as well-known and significant enough individual recognition to meet the criteria of the parent guideline ANYBIO prong #1. Her individual non-group recognition IS listed and sourced in the article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps this user is a regular in porn BLPs who votes to keep with invalid rationales, de-prods with no commentary and no effort made to improve the article, and so on. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll choose to avoid WP:ADHOM speculation, thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. This BLP has no verification from multiple secondary sources. Mattg82 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattg82: it seems the nominator may not have researched properly before nominating, with PORNBIO prong #3 being met, and WP:GNG being met even in ignoring her former porn career.[91][92][93][94][95] The article can be readdressed through regular editing to reflect her new career after leaving porn. Care to reconsider? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PORNBIO prong #3 being met, and WP:GNG being met after she has left her former porn career. The article can be readdressed through regular editing to to de-emphasize porn and build upon her post-porn career as actress and entrepreneur. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, no; a man bites dog curiosity in a local news outlet is insufficient. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage by disparate sources Patch Media-Dixon, KOVR-Sacramento and KSAZ-TV-Phoenix for something other than porn addresses any who might view pornography as her "only" sourcable career... and what you dismissed with an un-researched response to Cavarrone above, by her featuring in multiple mainstream films (even ones that may be current redlinks) she meets PORNBIO prong #3... though it might be less applicable now that she is sourcable as having left that industry. As nominator, you need not agree. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and other SNGs; negligible roles in minor releases, mostly softcore erotica, do not establish notability. Nor does ephemeral local news coverage for operating a fast food truck noted mainly for its double entendre slogans. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for pornography actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, PORNBIO.LM2000 (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rational that she fails WP:GNG simply do not apply. She passes WP:PORNBIO or/and WP:NACTOR. This actress has been covered in multiple reliable independent sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true, as it has already been clearly demonstrated that the subject fails the tightened pornbio guide. As for NActor, no, there are zero notable film roles. A news-of-the-day story about her weiner business is all that there is, which is insufficient for the general notability guide. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; subject clearly fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Pax 03:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO and GNG with flying colours!, I won't make a remark on her looks as that would be very inappropriate wouldn't it.... –Davey2010^Talk 20:29, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reem Al Marzouqi[edit]

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

Reads like a CV. Weak references. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzig20s (talk • contribs) 00:28, 20 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I have no strong feelings on the article one way or the other, but this reeks of WP:POINTed behavior. The nominating editor disagrees with some of my edits on a totally unrelated article, and shortly after improperly tries to speedy this article that I recently edited. This was right after describing it as "creepy" for other editors to watch their edit histories.[96] It's very disruptive when these kinds of arguments spill out into other areas like this, and it poisons the well for productive editing of controversial topics. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I said I would not discuss the SAE incident again, so please don't bring it up again and stop attacking me personally. Reem Al Marzouqi's page looks very weak to me--only two references, reads like a CV, doesn't look notable--there is nothing more to it.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the SAE, and you don't get to use that as a way to avoid responsibility for your actions. The only plausible reason you even looked at this article was because it was in my edit history. To try and speedy this article (without a valid rational) right after a disagreement appears to be a retaliatory edit. If a neutral party would like to AFD this, I would do the work to actually check and see if there are sources and go from there, but you're not neutral, and this nomination was obviously done in bad faith. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. This AFD is not about you at all. It's about "Reem Al Marzouqi". Please leave me alone. Don't comment on this if you don't want to.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to bully you or make things difficult okay? Please try to see it from my perspective. It looks like you followed me to an article I worked on and nominated it for deletion just because we disagreed about an unrelated issue. I think that was inappropriate behavior, and I have a right to explain that. Right? If not, why not? Now you are telling me to leave you alone, and that is very confusing. If you want to be left alone, you should not be following other editors around like that. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this article and it looks weak. I don't want to talk to you. I hope I never have to talk to you ever again. Speedily close this stub about a nobody with two weak references as keep if that's what it takes. But you are personalizing Wikipedia instead of looking at this article for what it is.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this article for deletion, so here we are. Don't try and blame this on me picking a fight with you. You keep saying you don't want to talk to me, but you keep insisting on having the last word. You say I'm the one personalizing Wikipedia, but you're the one making grudge edits. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no strong feelings on the article one way or the other why are you voting Speedy anything? Let the AfD continue with comments from people not involved in the feud. I see the nominator, you, Artw and Inicholson are all involved in the SAE dispute. How about letting neutral third parties weigh in? DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I regret mentioning this AFD on the SAE article's talk page. That was (inadvertent) canvassing on my part. I shouldn't have done that, and I don't think anyone should get involved with this, for or against, just because of that completely unrelated dispute.

My goal is to clearly explain what's going on. I think it's counter-productive to pretend that this isn't a messy nomination with a connection to unrelated wikidrama. I don't like the idea that my willingness to get involved in controversial articles means I have to fear retribution. I don't think that's a good precedent to set, and my understanding is that AFDs can be closed for procedural reasons on those grounds. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Bad faith nomination as part of feud. Artw (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we take that as a given that's not a valid argument one way or another for AfD. Please address the merits of this article instead of your views about some personal feud. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Concur with DreamGuy. The !votes by Grayfell and Artw do not even remotely address the notability merits or lack thereof – difficult to see how these should not be completely disregarded. Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Also Keep per recent changes to the article, since a speedy does not seem to have happened. Artw (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First UAE citizen to be granted a patent in the USA is surely notable. Inicholson (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inspiring story, but very far from meeting general notability guidelines. I don't think she is the "first Emirati to be granted a US patent". The source only claims she is the "first Emirati to be granted a US patent for a very narrow category of patents". I also couldn't verify that she was actually granted a US patent; no relevant search results on uspto.gov. Quarl ^(talk) 05:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Over 300,000 patents were granted by the US in 2014. The mere act of obtaining one therefore cannot be a valid rationale for notability. Pax 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This can't possibly make sense. She is notable for being the first and only (so far) person from UAE to have a patent granted, not for being one of the 300,000 to have a patent last year. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I can see how some editors believe this was made in bad faith, but even if it were we would have to focus on the merits of the article itself. I see nothing in the article that even sounds like it would meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia. The sources are weak, and even if sources exist to substantiate the claims, those facts would be rather trivial and not at all the kind of thing that deserves a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, "first Emirati female receiving a granted U.S. patent" is notable. The total number of women engineers from Arab nations with an enwiki article is apparently one, this. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: The patent in question is a design patent, to be clear, and as Pax said, having a patent does not establish someone's notability. The source in question is not credible enough(youngplus magazine?) to make the claim that she is the first Emirati to be granted a US Patent, I find that dubious Be..anyone. I also feel it is a fallacy for above voters to be attacking the nominator rather than the nomination. Questioning the nominators motives should have been placed as a concise comment, if at all, not as a 'speedy keep' vote that does not even talk about the article at hand. Your intentions may have been good, but this is not the forum for you to continue this dispute, Grayfell. Artw's vote is also improper for the same reason. ― Padenton |☎ 18:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all impressed by the YT statement of the brother, but she did represent UAE on an exhibition with 100 artworks, showing her car as 101st local addition, she's featured in a PDF of her university, and another reference supporting the Jessica Cox connection is also okay. BTW, there are four related patents on the patent search page, she's listed as inventor on all these patents, but only for the specified number she's listed first. Somebody with a clue about ((cite patent)) should fix it, I gave up and tweaked ((cite web)) as better than it was. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete worthy individual doesn't (yet) meet WP standards. Le petit fromage (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "keeps" (all "speedy") are either based on behavior of editors possibly involved in an off-topic disagreement (I didn't check) or the mistaken idea that a patent satisfies notability requirements. In looking at the article, the patent is indeed the main claim to notability, otherwise the article is filled with non-encyclopedic WP:OR. There are no policy grounds for retaining this article. Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, there are definitely sources which suggest notability, though I am always cautious when it comes to BLPs. This source The National covers her extensively and significantly. This source [97] also covers her though I am not sure of the reliability of the website. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the early comments about only two references no longer apply; she received considerable news coverage in multiple sources. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I looked at this one earlier and was on the fence about it, but the new refs are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another source: [98]. The National article seems to be more about women in engineering than coverage of the subject. The young+ article is thorough coverage. Looking at the young+ article more closely, it does not say "the first Emirati female being granted a US Patent", it says "the first Emirati inventor to win a US patent for designing a car that can be driven without hands", which is considerably more plausible and I've corrected in the WP article accordingly. This meets my WP:HEY. Vote corrected above.― Padenton|✉ 16:39, 29 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 // 00:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Quest[edit]

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

Article makes great unproven claims to national and international importance, but I can't see anything online to back this up. The information is excessive, and unsourced or sourced to the organization's website. I can't see any obvious coverage online to back up this article about these 21st century events. If someone can prove otherwise then go ahead, but I can't see this meeting WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The vast majority of what I could dig up about this karaoke contest was press releases and obvious publicity, along with a whole lot of mentions of this in articles about a John Denver impersonator who won it named Ted Vigil, but I did turn up one decent news story: "High stakes for valley men in karaoke competition", The Desert Sun, September 6, 2014; as well as "Local singer makes it to finals of Talent Quest" from the very small Marshall Democrat-News. And some interesting name checks, such as a piece in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser noting in passing that the legendary Wailana Coffee House in Waikiki "sponsored a group of its regulars at the Talent Quest National Karaoke Contest in Laughlin, Nevada last month." [99], and a similar mention re a Utah bar in the Salt Lake Tribune [100]. The current article is excessively promotional and I'm not currently prepared to !vote to keep it, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that someone might be able to source and clean it up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - though there's some indications it might be marginally notable (good finds, Arxiloxos), it's mostly unsourced and I still haven't seen much significant coverage of the competition itself in sources. Userfy might be an option if someone wanted to adopt it and fix the sourcing and promotional tone issues, however. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:16, 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.