Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 11 August	13 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Sandstein 11:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

საქართველოს დაცული ტერიტორიები

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

Not in English, previously deleted, and exists in the Georgian Wikipedia. User: Esmost ^talk 08:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it then (I mean in En:WP). Whenever we need to read it we can visit the Georgian WP. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously, but I think there was no need for this afd - the article could have been deleted under speedy delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Transwiki). I don't read Georgian but a bit of Google Translate shows there are some differences between this article and the target article on Georgian Wikipedia. They can decide how to merge the two. -- Gccwang (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe the logs of this article are saved, so the Georgian Wiki editors can reference this article if they wish to merge it. Frmorrison (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark T. Rafter

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

Subject is not notable. One book appears to be self-published (no such publisher in US, although there seems to be one in China) Howunusual (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the future, normally, completely unsourced BLPs such as this page are speedily deleted. Quick searches online reveal ZERO news ghits, a few patent notices, and a book from a vanity press. Inventors are not inherently notable, since many inventions are not notable, either. Please discuss more if you can find anything better as a source or that he invented a better mousetrap. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -This article is a prime candidate and an admin could handle this under lack of WP:GNG and completely unsourced BLPs--Canyouhearmenow 22:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please. Agree with everyone, this is a non-notable biography. --Gccwang (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one source, the subjects own webpage, is not enough to pass any inclusion guidelines. Although it is enough that the article is technically not unsourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there does not appear to be the coverage required by the WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 13:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose de Paula

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

Fails GNG. May become notable if he latches onto another team then makes the majors, but not before then. Wizardman 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Not notable enough for re-direct either.--Yankees10 01:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and fails WP:NBASEBALL. Jakejr (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant. Was on a 40-man roster, but not any more, so WP:POTENTIAL for an article is minimal. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable minor league baseball player. Not entitled to a presumption of notability under the specific notability guideline per WP:NBASEBALL (never played in the Major Leagues), and coverage is insufficient in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Blake

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

Previously kept in 2007 but time and notability standards move on. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet PORNBIO or GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above, Sadly fails PORNBIO .–Davey2010 • (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award nominations. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. Searching for sources gets hits for other people with the same name. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's and Gene93k's sound analyses. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator analysis. Her scene-related award nominations does not satisfy PORNBIO. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources, let alone substantial coverage. Finnegas (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG.LM2000 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails porn bio notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Journal of Biological Anthropology

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

Article was dePRODded wuth reason 'AfD would be a more suitable venue'. PROD reason was: "Predatory OA journal, not indexed in any selective database (only briefly in Scopus). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Why this need to go to AfD is beyond me, but here we are: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close WP:NPASR Anger management issues. Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? How can we be at "no consensus" before the discussion has even started? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NJournals. There are thousands of these bogus and equally-non-notable "journals" out there; do we really need an article on each of them? An article on its publisher might be appropriate, if the publisher is *notable* for being a predatory open-access publisher rather than merely being included on a list, but even that has not been demonstrated. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear fail of WP:NJournals. -- 101.117.89.21 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (1) NJournals is not an SNG. (2) Deleting this article altogether, without even a redirect, appears to remove the "warning" that it provides (namely that the journal is a predatory OA journal). Some of our readers and editors might be completely unaware of Beall's list. James500 (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NJournals is indeed not an SNG and was designed to make it easier for academic journals to be judged as notable. So if something misses NJournals, it's basically a certainty that it misses GNG, too. (Note that both the PROD and this nom include a reference to GNG). --Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable journal lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not in the business of retaining non-notable articles to "warn" readers and editors about predatory journals. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just found and removed four Wikipedia article references based on this journal and three external links to the journal itself. None were wikilinked to our article here. So obviously having an article as a warning that the journal is predatory and unreliable isn't working, even if that were a valid reason to keep (which I don't think it is). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to comment on that, I think I would have to know whether the rate at which citations are being added for predatory journals without WP articles is higher than the rate for those with WP articles, and then determine whether any such difference was statistically significant. I don't think I am in a position to do that. I think that might be a major undertaking. James500 (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC) (It has been a long time since I last studied statistics, and I apologise in advance if I am inadvertantly talking nonsense.) James500 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This journal not notable according to WP:NJournals, and the Beale reference refers to publishers, not this journal specifically. Also, this needs to be deleted because it serves to ~~publicize~~ promote a journal produced by a predatory OA publisher WP:NOTPROMOTION. Please see What Wikipedia is not for further insight. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee J. Alston

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

Non-notable academic, fails WP:PROF. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. References cite official bio and award from non-notable organization. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Google Scholar h-index of 28, which seems sufficient to meet WP:PROF criterion 1. [1] Jinkinson talk to me 22:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:Jinkinson - also, a full professor at a respected economics department (not Chicago, MIT, or Harvard, but still good). Bearian (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. H index of 28 satisfies PROF. James500 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee USA Network

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

The sources are either the subject's own website, or articles about something else which mention this organization in passing. (This has nothing to do with how strongly I believe in what they are trying to do; WP:ORG trumps my personal beliefs.) Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some material today, hopefully that will help? And I will work to keep improving it. I don't think that the articles are "about something else" and "mention this organization in passing." I think they are about an issue this organization works on and that the fact that this organization was sought after by all of these major outlets for comment is worthy of note. I'll keep improving it. AndrewHanauer (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs work + better citations, but I wouldn't delete it. They're a legitimate organization and have gotten a lot of coverage recently in the news. I'll try to contribute to this too. Spectrum-in (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely WP:GNG. Some serious work has been done by myself and others to improve this article. It now meets notability and neutrality standards. nbirnbaum1 17:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft:Hot Flashes and Phytoestrogens. Since the article's creator hasn't edited since creating it (which is why I'm choosing this result rather than userfication, as there's no telling whether the user is still around), the draft's best hope may be for other Wikipedians to work on getting it into shape. Deor (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Flashes and Phytoestrogens

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

Obviously, the author put a lot of work into this article, but the article is unfortunately, an essay. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. This is a true pity because the author clearly wrote a well-referenced, quality essay. Unfortunately, essays simply do not belong in Wikipedia per WP:NOTESSAY. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 04:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I suggest, before its deletion, the well-referenced parts of this page be copied/moved into a section of another related well-sourced page Phytoestrogens. Deleting this article outright would be a discouragement to the author who seems to have put lot of effort in this. Its a good work , although not from Wikipedia point of view - SaHiL (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge might be a possibility, we might want to merge it into Phytoestrogens? Plus, inform the author of abilities to recover the work after it is deleted by asking an admin. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Userfy. Came across this by accident, and it's a solid article hidden inside an essay. I think it would be wrong to merge with Phytoestrogens since they are subjectively different (by the article) but objectively linked. I suspect it wouldn't take too much to alter it. Most of the structure is already present. scope_creep talk 02:11 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Move to Draft: until the referencing meets WP:MEDRS. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or move to draft The article contains good information, but it is in violation of WP:NOTESSAY. I suggest moving this to userspace or to drafts so the creator and any other interested parties can work on salvaging the article. A straight-up delete is not desirable because the article contains good information that would be lost. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaBrix

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH and subsequently WP:GNG scope_creep talk 20:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources seem fine and MediaBrix is the subject of all of them, so WP:ORG and WP:GNG are met. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 23:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Park Lane (mall)

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

NN 40-store shopping mall. Was PRODed; but PROD was removed. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of smaller malls. Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – probably tied with Scotia Square as the most notable mall on the Halifax Peninsula. Home to the only cineplex on the peninsula. Subject to past academic study for its effect on small businesses downtown, i.e. in "Urban Structure — Halifax: An Urban Design Approach" by Beverly Sandalack (ISBN 0929112423). Article was more substantial in the past before over 75% of the content was deleted by the nominator for concerns of Wikipedia:Verifiability, despite the fact that while the policy dictates that content be verifiable, not ever minute detail need be explicitly referenced. I have limited time and no longer live in Canada, thus cannot access Canadian library resources, but hope to improve the article in the future if I am able. Wholesale deletion is not the answer. Citobun (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your OR that it is in your personal opinion that this 40-shop mall is probably tied as the most notable mall in the peninsula -- which is a community and planning area located in the urban core of Halifax Regional Municipality -- is not the sort of wp-guideline-based !vote that carries weight at a notability discussion. Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion, and not a notability discussion. Whether or not the topic is wp:notable, the evidence that this topic is wp:prominent within a topic in the encyclopedia means that the topic is not eligible for deletion and you should withdraw your nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – probably enough to meet WP:GNG with the sources I have added. There are entire articles about the development in the Canadian Press/Toronto Star and in The Chronicle Herald, as well as at least a few sentences of coverage in several other publications (the Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Atlantic Business, and the Financial Post). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the nominator removed material from this article before nominating it for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Good article, too. Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Construction Industry Magazine

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not a notable publication. Snappy (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources cover this magazine; it is not notable according Wikipedia standards. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri–South Carolina football rivalry

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

Non-notable college football rivalry that fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series as a rivalry, not merely as a recurring game series. By that GNG standard, it is almost impossible to find significant, in-depth coverage of Missouri-South Carolina as a "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:RS. Has anyone ever written an in-depth feature article about the history and significance of the Missouri-South Carolina series as a rivalry? Has anyone has ever written a book about the Missouri-South Carolina series as a rivalry? Kansas-Missouri? Clemson-South Carolina? Alabama-Tennessee? Florida-Georgia? Auburn-Georgia? Yes, to all of those. Missouri-South Carolina? Nope. And that's not surprising at all, given that this game has only been played four times in the last 35 years, and has only been played in consecutive years once (2012 and 2013). This series has a trophy, but none of the other hallmarks of a traditional college rivalry, and none of the independent sources covering the game refer to it as a "rivalry." CFB rivalries are about tradition, and this game series has none. This series could become a rivalry in the future, but it is not what was intended by WP:NRIVALRY in the present, and it is not supported by the precedents of the previous AfDs and talk page discussions of WP:CFB. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. There's seemingly an article about every single matchup in the SEC, including the recent ones. p b p 21:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Southeastern Conference page could be tweaked to show a bit more info about these series matchups (not "rivalries"), but in any case not every one of them warrants an article. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Patriarca12 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per just about all of the above. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. -AllisonFoley (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi State - Vanderbilt football rivalry

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

Non-notable college football rivalry that fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series as a rivalry, not merely as a recurring game series. By that GNG standard, it is almost impossible to find significant, in-depth coverage of Mississippi State-Vanderbilt as a "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:RS. Has anyone ever written an in-depth feature article about the history and significance of the Mississippi State-Vanderbilt series as a rivalry? Has anyone has ever written a book about the Mississippi State-Vanderbilt series as a rivalry? Ole Miss-Mississippi State? Tennessee-Vanderbilt? Alabama-Tennessee? Florida-Georgia? Auburn-Georgia? Yes, to all of those. Mississippi State-Vanderbilt? Never. And that's not very surprising, really; this game has only been played 21 times in 110 years, and has only been played in four consecutive years once during that time. This series has none of the hallmarks of a traditional college rivalry. If the Mississippi State-Vanderbilt series is notable as a "rivalry," then practically every annual series in the Southeastern Conference could be considered a "rivalry." When every conference series is a rivalry, then the term "rivalry" has effectively become meaningless. This is not what was intended by WP:NRIVALRY, and is not supported by the precedents of the previous AfDs and talk page discussions of WP:CFB. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suggest that instead of deletion, the article name be changed from "Mississippi State - Vanderbilt football rivalry" to "Mississippi State - Vanderbilt football series". In this way, the article can still be used for research and viewing purposes but not misleading as a "rivalry." nateb2003

Nate, if it's not notable as rivalry, then we don't cover it as a stand-alone game series article. If it's worth saving, the material should be incorporated into the stand-alone team articles, and where appropriate into each team's season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Perhaps it would make sense to adjust the Southeastern Conference page a bit (it describes several conference series as "rivalries" and wikilinks to several of questionable notability) - maybe along the lines of Mountain_West_Conference#Conference, which doesn't wikilink everything, and adds a bit of information about number of games played, record and series leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnInDC (talk • contribs)

John, those mentions of this game series as a "rivalry" in the Southeastern Conference article are what tipped me off to the existence of this and several other recently created CFB "rivalry" articles. Those mentions in the SEC article are recent additions by the creators of the new "rivalry" articles, and those references will be removed at the conclusion of this AfD, lest someone think there are significant sources supporting this series as a "rivalry." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, not a reason at all to keep this (or any other) article but rather just an observation that we don't want a bunch of redlinks. Also too maybe it would be nice to have a table with the series records laid out for people to see. JohnInDC (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not a significant enough rivalry to warrant an article. p b p 21:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Patriarca12 (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Any substantive information about individual games can be merged into the applicable articles for the Mississippi State and Vanderbilt seasons. Cbl62 (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per just about all of the above. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. -AllisonFoley (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrillas (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND, tagged for unclear notability for six years. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable band. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hank the Cowdog#List of books. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Blinded Blizzard

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, tagged for unclear notability for six years, JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hank_the_Cowdog#List_of_books. I can't find where this book is notable outside of the main series as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as mentioned above. Frmorrison (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navan Man

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

Fails WP:GNG, tagged for unclear notability for six years. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local radio show characters are not notable, absent very clear evidence otherwise. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, was a minor character, long forgotten now. Snappy (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created this page years ago, thinking it might develop into something, but it's time to get rid of it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shogo Kina

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

Non-notable per Wikipedia:PERPETRATOR - victim is not "a renowned national or international figure", nor is the crime, motivation etc historically significant. ukexpat (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may seem heartless but it is true. The rape and murders are reported and exist but other then that, there is nothing, to me, here that passes notability guidelines. - Pmedema (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:PERPETRATOR. Sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article has not been demonstrated. --DAJF (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Najmi Healing Energy

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

Non-notable alternative therapy. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and this does not seem to have them. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahzad Ali Najmi and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi/Archive may be relevant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:FRINGE. CesareAngelotti (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found literally no reliable sources for this, no mention of it anywhere other than social media sites and the official website, the article's "references" show that it has been mentioned in passing at best. Seems like WP:PROMO to me. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 08:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references. As well as social media sites I did find mention in a couple of directories of psychics and "spiritual healers", but nothing that proves notability. RomanSpa (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comments Please Search References with original Books's Title نجمی شفائی توانائی --Farha Zeba (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)--Farha Zeba (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)— Farha Zeba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've done that, and there are not enough adequate references. A simple announcement of publication is not proof of notability. You are reminded that social media are not accepted for these purposes. RomanSpa (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Average age of incumbent legislators

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

While perhaps an interesting topic, this page is currently just an abandoned, outdated, incomplete, unsourced collection of statistics. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unmaintainable and not encyclopedic in this form, merely a collection of statistics without context. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never mind that this article needs completion, it needs starting. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why these 4 countries. What of Kenya, India, China, etc. This would be horribly hard to maintain, and there does not seem to be the will to do so. It would be interesting to trace the change over time, but would get unruly as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gunilla Gerland

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

I suggest the deletion of this article, as the subject is not really noteworthy, having authored one obscure book and a few articles. And there is some unsourced material.2602:304:78E4:9989:D1A3:4198:F989:A2B1 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 18:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a book is still a book. And yes a few articles. Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Influential writer with a unique contribution. Easily meets WP:GNG test of multiple, independent, reliable nontrivial sources, with sources here, here, here, here and here. Published author, influential voice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her autobiography was reviewed in major newspapers and continues to be cited in academic studies. I've tightened up the article a bit and added some references, will add more as I find them. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Tomwsulcer and Pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Under present guidelines, YouTube views are not an arbiter of notability. If that ever changes, or if other sources become available, no prejudice towards recreation. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Buckley (comedian)

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

Fails to meet our criteria for either WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non-notable. CesareAngelotti (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with "non-notable" (unless you believe all Internet personalities are), but I agree this page should be deleted. In its current form, it's not a valuable resource to anyone looking for information about A Dose of Buckley or its creator, and it has far too many errors and nothing cited. - Buckley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.225.50 (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have added that one additional criterion in WP:ENTERTAINER would allow us to keep merely on the basis of "a large fan base." As of now Adoseofbuckley has 482 k subscribers. Thoughts? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a threshold for what is "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"? If 482,000 makes that grade, then yes I agree this page should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisSimms (talk • contribs) 02:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've done a quick search on him and there isn't much about him online. I would guess he's bought his youtube subscribers/views but I can't say that for sure. The page would need to be cited properly for it to stay and even then he may not meet notability. MaxineBangs (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know you could buy views but yes, I see one could. That does complicate things a little when it comes to equating views with "fan base," I suppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've just done some further researching and I noticed on his Facebook page a few people on my friends list have "liked" his page. I also read comments on a couple of his youtube videos and the comments seem legit. I think the page does need a lot of work though and shouldn't be on Wikipedia at it's current state. Also on further inspection of the creators talk page, all I see is block notices and notifications of his pages being deleted. Looks like a PR person to me so I'm going to say delete. MaxineBangs (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, I bought 77 million views? How much would that cost? Thank you for believing I'm rich, but I haven't bought a single view or subscriber. Someone created this Wikipedia page, someone else brought it to my attention in a reddit post on a subreddit (that I didn't create) about my work. A "quick search" would show you that I have a website, a verified Facebook page with nearly 50,000 likes, and a Twitter account with 26,000 followers. None of those things were purchased. For a community priding itself on research instead of hearsay, not much has gone into this thread. As I said previously, I agree that this page is not well sited (someone did the awards) and should potentially be deleted just based on the fact that it's not well put together. But "non-notable"? Based on Wikipedia's own criteria for it as brought up by the other two users above, I'm notable. A Dose of Buckley (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if the consensus is you meet the fan base criterion in WP:ENTERTAINER, I'd be quite happy to see this article kept. That certainly does seem like a very impressive number of followers, subscribers, and what have you. As for the awards, fwiw, WP:ANYBIO would require significant, major awards to confer notability, and I don't believe those two awards would qualify. Lastly, I hope you won't take any of this personally. This is a discussion about whether an article meets a specific set of guidelines. I've no doubt that you are notable, regardless of whether an article about you can be written in such a way that it meets Wikipedia criteria, at this point in time. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I certainly don't take it personally if the article doesn't meet guidelines, if it doesn't meet criteria to be here. I said previously I thought it should be deleted. However, claims that I purchased followers do tend to annoy me. Also the awards thing wasn't regarding notability, more about how someone attempted to cite at least something on the page. I don't care if there's a Wikipedia page about me, but I do care that if it exists, it's correct and accurate, so I'm entirely with you on that. Just not a fan of being accused of things I didn't do. A Dose of Buckley (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eren Niazi

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

The information here does not seem to support notability DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article has a rather bizarre history, with an editor attempting to blank it repeatedly and making particular claims about the subject and COI. I should've nominated it a while ago. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. DGG -- when you say "the information here" are you referring to the information in the article? Or the information that a wp:before search turns up, such as in addition to this Forbes article, and this article in The Street, this, and this, and this, and this etc?

As Protonk points out, this article does have a bizarre history. It "looks" to me, though I could be wrong, as though an editor with a COI created the article. And then had a falling out with the subject of the article. And then sought to delete the article.[2][3] But I imagine we should ignore all that, and just determine whether the sources here support notability. Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that we should delete the article due to the history (although it's sometimes ok to weigh that, IMO). But I think the sourcing is marginal, in the true sense of the word. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article on a minor businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Paintball 3

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

Simply not notable, not sources and a search turned up nothing usable. Even if some sources could be dug up it's likely a permanent stub. Яehevkor ✉ 16:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG ~~and, as it has not been released, WP:TOOSOON~~. Ansh666 19:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it has since been released, which makes its failure of WP:GNG all the more telling. Ansh666 19:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search (nor did its maker or other entries in the series). No worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 06:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Black Sea

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

Poorly sourced article consisting of detailed sports stats in violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. It lacks context and any evidence of notability. - Mr X 16:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with MrX. The article lacks any evidence of notability and almost all of the links go nowhere. MaxineBangs (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to New York's 13th congressional district election, 2006. Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Harrison (candidate)

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

Some national coverage, but a failed political candidate who certainly doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN and I don't think there's enough to meet WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Merge content related to the 2006 election into New York's 13th congressional district election, 2006 and the 2008 content into United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2008#District 13; then redirect the article to the first of these (since Harrison didn't even win a primary in 2008). And delete the details about Harrison that are unrelated to these two elections. I'd be happy to take care of this after the AfD is finished, if that is the closing decision (and someone lets me know; I'm not planning to watch this). I note that I redirected the article after the November 2006 election, but it was rebuilt by an IP editor in Queens, NY, in 2007.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge content as per John Broughton above Does not meet NPOL. Cowlibob (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates do not qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being candidates, and this article offers no strong evidence that he's notable for anything else. No objection to a redirect, but there's no genuinely substantive content here to merge beyond his name itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleted as a clear hoax §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha E Heng

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

Can't find any sources verifying any part of article - appears completely fictional. Article author appears to have also added name to several other articles replacing legitimate and verifiable name. Fru1tbat (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G3 as a blatant hoax. Linked articles are about other people--reference links in reference section simply substitute Ms. Heng's name for the real subject of the article. --Finngall ^talk 16:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3 as hoax. Reference links are forged. -- Dspradau → talk 16:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to David R. Godine, Publisher. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Godine

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

Does not appear to be notable independent of his company Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles into one. I don't know if there's a need for separate articles for his bio and his company, but Godine is a notable publisher, and biographical information about the individual is relevant to the company (and vice versa). There's a chapter about him in this book about independent publishers [4], and other assorted coverage includes [5] [6][7] as well as these, which may not fully qualify as independent sources for notability purposes but still appear to be reliable and informative: [8] [9][10][11] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David R. Godine, Publisher Subject has not received enough coverage for a standalone article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Ekabhishek^talk 08:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goa Today

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

I couldn't establish that thia meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely exists and appears to have had its heyday in the 90s under editor Manohar Shetty, the poet. The Oxford Companion to Modern Poetry in English. The best I could find on the magazine itself was a couple paragraphs in Behind the News: Voices from Goa's Press. Perhaps others will find more. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from what 24.151.10.165 has mentioned above, the detailed coverage in Noronha, Frederick (24 March 2014). "The state of Goa's magazine market: Impressive or depressive?". Indian Printer and Publisher Magazine. 36 (3). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help) needs to be considered. Outside India, the Lonely Planet Goa guidebook mentions it as Goa also has its own monthly magazine Goa Today, which is well written and focuses on a particular issue of local interest every month. Lambert Mascarenhas also was commended as editor in Nazareth, Peter (1985). "Alienation, nostalgia, and homecoming: editing an anthology of Goan literature". World literature today: a literary quarterly of the University of Oklahoma. 59 (3): 374–382. JSTOR 40140844.. Despite being a popular and local magazine, Goa Today is cited as a reliable source in articles in scholarly journals such as, among others, Ethnohistory, Economic and Political Weekly, Modern Asian Studies, Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, Social Analysis, Journal of Social and Economic Development, Management and Labour Studies, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, Asian Survey, Studies in Indian Politics, Journal of South Asian Literature, Indian Historical Review, Ethnic and racial studies, Current Issues in Tourism, and Tourist Studies, as well as in numerous books. --Bejnar (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources and Bejnar's WP:HEY work. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Gielty

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Station (roller coaster)

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

This article breaches the WP:NOR and WP:GNG policies. Wackyike (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC) @Dom497, FirstDrop87, Astros4477, GoneIn60, Themeparkgc, and McDoobAU93: Do any of you have any opinions?Wackyike (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing, most likely an original composition. No place on Wikipedia. --McDoob AU93 14:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with above. No source = No article! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is not notable for inclusion and does not include any references. Perhaps it could exist as a stub with just the basics? FirstDrop87 (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is enough sourced information to merit having its own article. It's probably better off as a small section within roller coaster or roller coaster elements. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GoneIn60.--Dom497 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beat the Kids

Fails WP:GNG. beat the kids bbc search on google provides no sources or significant coverage that meets GNG.

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

AldezD (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [12] suggests this ran in 2004. Assuming that's true, the sentence, "There has so far been one series of the show" could mislead the reader or reviewer into believing the show was more recent. FWIW, Beat The Nation did run in 2004, e.g. [13]. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added to article. Samsara (FA • FP) 03:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a short-run programme with no significant coverage, and no claim to notability. This article has existed since 18 September 2004‎ and still has no references. We have given it almost ten years for development; I think it safe to say that it can be reasonably deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

František Šmahel

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

Unsourced advert. I tried to A7 this and AlanS has prodded it. Both tags have been removed. Laun chba ller 13:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable per having published a large number of works. Don't see how this 2 sentence article could be considered an advert. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was an advert when I saw it. I wiped an entire section of pure advertising which Eastmain disagreed with and subsequently restored.--Laun chba ller 16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive ~~references~~ list of offices, achivements and publications in the corresponding articles in the Czech and German Wikipedias at cs:František Šmahel and de:František Šmahel. I have restored this information to the English article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your comments at the bottom. To an independent editor, having this comment above Filelakeshoe's would read that you restored the article to a two-sentence state!--Laun chba ller 16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources. Being a prolific editor does not make one notable. The claims about the subject would make the subject notable if only they were properly sourced. I'm confident the article in Czech Wikipedia can be improved. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on notability, but this is pretty much a copy-paste from the English version of this. (Click on the EN icon at the upper right corner of that page. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 17:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell did that last 90 months? Those revisions need to be oversighted. I've removed the offending content, all an oversighter needs to do is oversight every revision except for my most recent one.--Laun chba ller 19:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've WP:REVDEL'd them. I don't think the stronger step of oversight is necessary. All the version history (without the text of the revisions) should still be visible to anybody. And if any participants here want to read the more detailed bio before it was cut back to a non-copyvio version, please follow EricEnfermero's instructions above — it really is essentially the same, and the link is clearly marked as copyright with a terms of use link that says "All rights reserved". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly thought they were the same - thank you.--Laun chba ller 20:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Re User:filelakeshoe's earlier comment): Publishing many works is explicitly not one of the WP:PROF notability criteria. And Google scholar citation counts (one of the most frequent means of judging notability here) are doubly unhelpful for someone who publishes in the humanities in Czech. But he seems to have picked up a large number of awards and learned society fellowships, enough for both criteria #C2 and #C3 of WP:PROF, and his journal editing work and presidency of the Czech Learned Society also make a case for criteria #C8 and #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most important Czech medievalists, in 2013 the Government of the Czech Republic awarded him the prestigious Czech Head Award, according to Czech Television. He also frequently appears in the mainstream media, [14] (Czech Radio), [15] (Lidové noviny), [16] (Reflex) etc. Speedy keep, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per information given by the commenters immediately above. I hope this information makes it into the article as well! -- SCZenz (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A simple check on the Google scholar link above indicates that he has written a number of books and that these are widely cited. This is quite enough for the article to be kept. However it needs to be tagged as a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't judge articles in the Czech WP, but I can in German, and the article in the German WP is fully convincing with respect to notability. The German WP is almost always more demanding with respect to notability than we are, and I consider it rash to nominate for deletion an established article there without very good reasons. They do use sources differently (for example, they almost always refer to outside lists of publications instead of providing one) but the article there at present has at least one newspaper source used to support notability in the same manner we do. With respect to notability as a professor, in addition to citations, the editorship of a relevant vol. in Monumenta Germaniae Historicais an indication of his being an expert in Hussite studies. It was specially remarked upon in this connection in the deWP article.

I am, btw, not that certain about the removal of the entire CV as copyvio--the part which is a list of publication is not copyrightable, and can be restored. As his CV, the link at least should have been retained. However, the main content of the article can be replaced without using the rest of the copyvio simply by translating the German.

I am however certain on reading the article at the time it was nominated that it was not the least an advertisement. A plain CV, without using terms of praise or importance, is not an advertisement. (True, it's not a suitable WP article as it stands , and will at the least require rewriting--but that's another matter) There are academic bios submitted here that I do regard as promotional, sometimes enough to be G11, but this is not one of them. I note that the nom. here also tried to delete the article as A7,which is really absurd: saying someone is the heado f a dept at a major European university is an unmistakable claim of importance if there ever was one. . I suggest a snow keep. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, though I'm open to a re-creation discussion if someone wants to show additional sources etc. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenacres Shopping Centre

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

Mall of approx 26,037m2 retail space, not big enough based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Not finding a lot of Reliable sources, most searches are promotional. Orphaned since 2009, nothing links here anyway Gbawden (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete The information seen in the snippets from WP:BEFORE D1, Google images, and the information removed from this article after the start of the AfD, [17], show that this is a wp:notable regional mall. However, the only source in the article is a primary source which is giving a 404 error. So the article fails WP:V and lacks a champion to keep it up to date. Both of these problems are remediable, and Soft delete allows the article to be restored at WP:REFUND. Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, generally speaking there are reasons why most malls and shopping centers are not notable. This mall exemplifies some of them: small, locally important, but seemingly not for the Eastern Cape, and lacking independent coverage other than PRs. The types of sources decried at WP:CORPDEPTH are the type that are used to try an shore-up support for keeping a mall, for example see this promo piece by a related real estate company. This topic fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Charlton

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't see anything about this diplomat that qualifies him as notable under any other rationale Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep CMG and CVO are both notable awards. He's in both Debrett's and Who's Who. The nomination amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:ANYBIO. Commander of St. Michael and St. George. Pburka (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CesareAngelotti (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - Closing this early since it's a clear keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hay

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't see anything about this diplomat that qualifies her as notable under any other rationale Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Notable for media coverage and awards. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and WP:TROUT for nominator - she a dame FFS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hay meets WP:ANYBIO through her achievements in the British diplomatic corps. She single-handedly opened a new British Consulate General in St. Petersburg after the 1991 coup.[18] She was also the first female Consul General in Istanbul and the first female ambassador in Tashkent. She also meets WP:BASIC as the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g. BBC America). gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Nettleton

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't see anything about this diplomat that qualifies her as notable under any other rationale Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she's in Who's Who. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - District judges are also listed in Who's Who, but that alone is not sufficient for them to warrant inclusion by WP standards. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Flaming Ferrari: You might like to go and amend the article Who's Who (UK) which says that it covers "notable Britons ... [included] by prominence in public life or professional achievement." You could add a footnote, perhaps, explaining that the word "notable" is used in that article in the everyday sense in which a layman would understand it, and doesn't mean "notable" in the special WP sense? Stanning (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's been British ambassador to two countries while there's been upheaval in Latin American-United Kingdom relations. She also was awarded an OBE. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I consider the Who's Who not to be a good source, having been ambassador shows notability in my opinion. Therefore my Keep. AAA3AAA (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Browne

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't see anything about this diplomat that qualifies her as notable under any other rationale. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she's in Who's Who. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - District judges are also listed in Who's Who, but that alone is not sufficient for them to warrant inclusion by WP standards. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oxford University Press feels that she's notable (Who's Who) and she's widely quoted in the press. Pburka (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - not as a diplomat per se, but due to sourcing per WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

France at the 2014 European Athletics Championships

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

Unsourced article consisting of mostly empty tables which presumably will be filled with detailed sports stats in violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. - Mr X 12:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being part of a series of articles on nations at the 2014 EAC. Being unsourced is not a reason for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited, and the OTHERSTUFF still doesn't demonstrate that this list of stats has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple sources. There is nothing encyclopedic or informative about listing bare stats. It's NOT consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia.- MrX 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it is consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. These are no-less notable than the by country articles for the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, etc. These are the top level athletes representing their nations, with each country level article being a summary of what happened in each event. Each one can be easily expanded with the results, with references and prose. How is the French article any different to the women's 100m article from the same event? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Lugnuts says being part of a series of articles on nations at the 2014 EAC. With many Championships and Games country pages are created and most of them are stubs/lists. If you want to get this stuff deleted, put all the coutry pages up for deleting, including all the country pages from previous years. Besides of that I don't really see the difference between this page and for instance France at the 2014 Winter Olympics. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addition See the country pages of the recent EACs below. In my opinion it would be a shame to delete all these pages. I don't agree with Mr, I think these pages are informative. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addition 2 Mr wrote:
There is nothing encyclopedic or informative about listing bare stats. It's NOT consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia.
however on mentioned page is stated (see: here):
Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.
Meaning that pages about statistics are allowed on WP, and in this article are tables used to enhance the readability of the lengthy data lists. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the nominator also explain how this differs from this article, for example? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination, I submit, completely misunderstands nature of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK : the rules set out that Wikipedia is not the place for bare stats that are not informative, or an indiscriminate collection of information.

Well, such a list as this could not be MORE discriminate. It sets out clearly, and uniquely, a collection of results - ALL of which on their own will have been notable and made note upon in various media sources - but in a way that briefly provides the reader a simple, clear way of finding significant and clearly defined information on a subject of interest - the full yet succinct summary of the performance of a national team at a significant international competition run on a national team basis.

And it is also the very opposite of bare stats; in fact it's the very nature of such lists to provide depth and context to bare 'medal tally' stats that are a fundamental building block of media reporting and public interest in sports. Finally, the fact that the list in total is not the subject of significant coverage is irrelevant if the content itself has been, which is clearly the case.

OP appears to have a personal issue with the very idea of such stats pages; I respect the view, but, in my view this issue is entirely wrong-headed. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Mercury International

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted via WP:G11. That deletion was appealed to deletion review. The result of the review was to restore the article and list it on AfD, as is normal for a contested proposed deletion. My listing it here is purely an administrative function; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion - Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified delete I had it speedied because I felt it was utterly promotional. It's common practice to delete articles without redeeming qualities and start over. Indeed, it's one valid rationale. However, I would have no objections to restoring this version. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is clearly notable, as shown by a Google Books search. I agree that the version speedied was hopelessly promotional. I have restored it to an earlier and more neutral version that lists some of the award winners. This is, to me, the main interest in the article. I may expand and move it to a title that focuses on the award. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks like the restore and rewrite has fixed the article. It is cited and referenced. Many of the references would not, by themselves pass reliable source levels. Some of them do seem reliable and the others are prolific enough that I feel that it has passed the WP:N and WP:V levels for inclusion. Pmedema (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a very strange article. For example, the source for the receipt of an award by Brezhnev is the "youngstown Vendicator" -- hardly an expected source for that information. I looked (randomly) at the 2006 awards. There are 7 "winners", 2 of whom are listed on the "International Advisory Board" page of the organization. The one winner in 2009 is also on that page. The awards seem to have been given out yearly until 1989, after which they come out every 2, 3 or 4 years. Note that none of the references in the article are about either the organization or the award, just about to whom the award has been given. It all may be on the up-and-up, but if this were a US non-profit I would love the look at their 990's. There is absolutely no mention of sponsors, fund-raising, nada. This article may solid, but the organization itself just begs for some investigative journalism. LaMona (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of sources are just about recipients, but a number discuss the original or current organization and the people who run it, such as this one. The subject is real enough and notable enough. I get the impression that in the cold war period the host countries provided the funding. The Kabul New Times 1980-10-28 (zoom in) also reports the Brezhnev award and gives a reasonable explanation of the operation at that time. Later the number and frequency of awards seems to have tapered off. The current organization advertises consulting services, and perhaps just keeps the awards on life support as a sort of status symbol. Maybe somewhere there is an investigative report that explains it all more clearly. I could not find one. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A whopping 61 sources!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Thomas

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't see anything about this diplomat that qualifies her as notable under any other rationale. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was quoted and interviewed frequently during her ambassadorship, as a cursory Google search will show. (Some may refer to ambassadors as mere spokespeople for their governments, but such a position isn't supported by the sources.) She also received an OBE, admittedly a relatively junior order. Pburka (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she seems to have a pretty distinguished career, with more accomplishments sure to come. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:TROUT for the nominator. This is getting silly now. Notability experts at Oxford University Press have judged her notable. She has an OBE which is usually regarded as an award of small but not insignificant significance and enough to keep us interested. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note: I'll be happy to provide a copy if someone wants to use this as a start for a Wikibook, but there's not much here yet. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Common Latex Equations

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

Unsourced list of equations lacking context or any list inclusion criteria. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:OR apply. With sources, the content may be able to be merged to LaTeX. - Mr X 12:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are not even equations, just random LaTeX examples. We have better examples in LaTeX. -- 101.117.2.126 (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per WP:NOTHOWTO. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we're not a webhost. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even as a howto this is indiscriminate and useless. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Victorian Amateur Football Association. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monash Blues Football Club

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

Non-notable amateur Australian football club, fails WP:NAFL and WP:CLUB. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victorian Amateur Football Association at the least. Could arguably be notable in its own right, there are definitely several VAFA teams that are and Monash Blues have played A Grade, the top level of that competition. Some coverage in newspapers, coverage in Fairfax archives, australianfootball.com page. An argument could probably be made for notability, but if not it should definitely be redirected. As an aside, NAFL doesn't cover clubs, only players and coaches. Jenks24 (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amateur footy team lacking in significant third-party coverage. AlanS (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original and most successful of the football teams representing Australia's largest (student body) university. Alumni, amongst others, include former Federal Treasurer, current capital city Mayor, former AFL team CEO, current AFL team COO. Lintornterry (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Victorian Amateur Football Association. Reyk _YO! 04:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeep Basnet

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

Seemingly non-notable person. Can't find third party sources about subject of article (makes claims of significance so not CSD-A7 worthy). Stickee (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only source personal website. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kung Fu Hustle characters

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

This article do not signifies the characters' notability. So split article is not needed for the characters. The article maybe merged into Kung Fu_Hustle#Cast. SABRINA ELEXA (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)— [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of characters from a singular piece of fiction is excessive and basically trying to avoid WP:NOTPLOT. We allow brief comments on characters in a cast list, like 2-3 lines, if introducing the characters in more detail seems reasonable, but that's it without significant secondary sources . --MASEM (t) 14:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: This AFD was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet, but because User:Masem concurred with the deletion request, I'm not closing the AFD as created in bad-faith. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, since we're here, I'll agree that it should be deleted. Good film, but there's really no cause for a character list to be created. The main article is good enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Redemption

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

Purely promotional. Self published book..see http://enigmaspublishing.com/meet-the-team/ Only 'supposedly' reliable independent source is "Blackmore Vale Magazine", which is not a magazine, and publishes user-generated content... see http://www.blackmorevale.co.uk/houserules.html Unable to find any other independent coverage in reliable sources. Revent^talk 10:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book ultimately passes notability guidelines. If there was an article for Kilzer I'd suggest redirecting there, but he doesn't seem to have one. He has won a Pulitzer (along with Chris Ison for investigative reporting), but that notability does not transfer to everything he writes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any reliable sources that review, summarize or pertain to this book. It is therefore not notable according to Wikipedia standards. (WP:NBOOKS). Self promotion is not acceptable on Wikipedia either (WP:PLUG).--- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn - (non-admin closure) --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 08:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Spirits (short story collection)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I would think that this meets WP:NBOOK #5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." Robertson Davies is among the most studied Canadian authors. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also, some quick searching turned up the following reviews: University of Toronto Quarterly, Washington Post, Montreal Gazette, Boston Phoenix, Canadian Literature. Boleyn, you say you couldn't "establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG"; what steps did you takes to establish notability before reaching this conclusion? Tchaliburton (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn You're right, User:Tchaliburton. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After the cleanup, at any rate, there is no consensus to delete here. The merits of the subject's medical views or practices aren't reasons for deletion... Sandstein 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Horner MD

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

This article is possibly a copy and paste job and is not in wiki format, and it is probably too much work to clean up Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with nominator, so I mostly blanked the unsourced material as per WP:BLP abnd possible WP:COPYVIO concerns; there are references indicating notability but article creator needs to write this article properly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the creator of the article but really new to all this. I created the article in word, using the Dr. Oz wiki as a guideline, then copied and pasted into this entry, thus the problems with formatting. Sorry but I was under the impression that there was an editorial process in place for cleanup. In terms of notability, Horner is a creator of significant new federal healthcare legislation for breast reconstruction surgery and an award-winning author and media personality. I also notice the middle name is incorrect, Louise was her birth name but has been legally changed to Athena ( see these links: ^[1]) I'm happy to edit and clean up the article, but not sure the best way. Kypris3 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC) kypris3 14 August 2014[reply]

Delete There is absolutely nothing in the article that could make this article pass WP:BASIC. Notability might be asserted, but not proven in the article Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References count is 19 after revamp, which suggests Horner passes the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User talk:Tomwsulcer has done a great job of fixing the article. I have found some what I think are reliable and independent references, I am worried that some of the 19 refs are less than reliable, but on the whole Dr Horner is now shown to be notable and the article should be kept Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although there are many references, none of them is to what I would consider to be a major source. There are local radio interviews, mostly as reviews of her book, and articles in non-scientific journals. An article in a medical journal would be expected here if she has developed a medically significant treatment. In fact, she's advising women to eat flax seed, and to avoid Electro-Magnetic Forces using a gizmo she sells on her web site. Her web site calls her "best selling author" and "renowned speaker." I'm learning toward delete for pure charlatanism, and I'd love to know where her MD is from (and if she's board certified at any medical facility). LaMona (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is overthinking things. Horner is a plastic surgeon who wants to decrease the number of mastectomies through preventive methods (diet, exercise, etc). She is not an academic. She wrote a book, speaks on television and radio frequently, is a clear and persuasive speaker, and there are numerous references (18+) such as this one and this one and this one and this one and others which far exceed the GNG requirement of received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A "local" radio or TV interview, when the market is Miami, Florida -- metro population 5.5 million -- how is this "local"? -- CBS Miami should be considered to be a reliable source. Wikipedia's notability rules are straightforward. It is not our job as Wikipedia contributors to play medical researchers, to evaluate whether Horner's methods and advice are medically sound or whether Horner's educational credentials or publishing history is worthy -- we are not in a position to make such evaluations and nobody expects us to do this here -- simply our job is to determine whether a subject is notable. That's it. Clearly Horner is notable. IF there are sources claiming her methods are incorrect or detrimental (and I searched hard when revamping the article -- I did not find any) -- but if such sources exist, then we should add them to the article and say that such-and-such a critic disputes her method. But claiming she's a charlatan with no sources saying so is pure original research. I am not saying that she is not a charlatan -- this may be the case but my guess is that it is almost certainly not the case -- but it is not our position here to make such a determination. As she is not an academic, it makes no sense to insist that she publish in specific medical journals to establish her notability along the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC; rather, simply, she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of this discussion is Keep then the article name should change to Christine Horner, she should lose the suffix MD in accordance with wikipedia naming conventions Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about ditching the MD.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article reads well now and fits with Wikipedia style. AAA3AAA (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Boxing Union

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

Non-notable boxing organization. If you remove the section on "related organization" (no relation is demonstrated) and references to a "resurrected" title (the references are all from when the title was active) we are left with a single reference which does not even mention the organization. Organization is completely unreferenced. The creation appears to be closely affiliated with the original editor and it is far from clear whether the intent is a boxing organization or series of shows. In either case all events are far in the future with not venues even booked.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage or indication that this organization is notable. Jakejr (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Article appears promotional and an attempt to cash in by using a long defunct organization's name. Papaursa (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the poor overall quality of the discussion, the "keep" side performed distinctly worse here: the opinion by NigelHowells is disregarded as incomprehensible, and that by Subtropical-man for making no argument. Only NotYetAnotherEconomist makes a valid argument for retention, but they are clearly outnumbered by the other participants. Even if their opinions must be given less weight because they don't address the source found by NotYetAnotherEconomist, it's rather clear that this one opinion, and one apparently reliable source, can't turn the tide of numbers and notability requirements. If the sourcing situation ever noticeably improves, the article may be recreated. Sandstein 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Karel

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

I proposed this article for deletion about two weeks ago, but removed my proposal because the author did provide some primary sources that seemed to establish the subject's notability. However, the author has failed to back this information up with reliable secondary sources. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 08:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 08:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you care to explain why? --Λeternus ^(talk) 18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's very nice but we don't keep articles based on looks sadly!, Anyway per nom no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she is notable. See for example this interview: http://www.20min.ch/ro/entertainment/people/story/12637558 NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO as none of her award wins are "well-known and significant". No signifigant coverage to suggest she passes GNG. Finnegas (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- about PORNBIO, i added about the third criteria. It was deleted (twice). You can see it on helena karel's talk page.Sg7438 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written above, you provided a single primary source (information from her website) where it was written that Karel had appeared in various magazines, but you did not provide reliable secondary sources to confirm this information. Note that even if this information from her website stayed in the article, it wouldn't change anything. Reliable secondary sources would still be needed. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the begining you just needed to delete that page... Bravo ! Sg7438 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Finnegas' accurate analysis. There are virtually no reliably sourced claims in the article, and none supporting notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : HK is a very famous actress in Europe and France : her enlish page contains primary and secondary sources : just check it.Sg7438 (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked the page I can confirm that the sources provided are not sufficient to pass WP:GNG as they do not amount to signifigant coverage in reliable sources. Finnegas (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may judged them insufficients but they are presents (there's more secondary sources than primary)... Sg7438 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: immediately notable relating to autism, as she gives to causes on this area. --NigelHowells (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines for porn actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott and Casey

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

Completely unsourced article about a radio show which may or may not pass WP:NMEDIA (it makes claims — e.g. syndication — which might qualify it, but they aren't verifiable without proper reliable sourcing.) I'd be willing to withdraw this if the sourcing improves, but it can't keep an unsourced version. Delete. Note also the redirects from the individual hosts, Scott Hasick and Casey Bartholomew, which will also need to be deleted if this goes — and Bartholomew will also have to be watched for WP:COI, as the subject has been trying to overwrite it with an WP:AUTOBIO. Bearcat (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, no notability. LaMona (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Short-lived, non-notable radio program. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Macleod

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

Non notable, believe she fails WP:BASIC and GNG. A number of the sources in this article make not mention of her. Written with a promotion tone. I don't think receiving a "Appreciation for participation" is enough to make her notable Gbawden (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The issue with references and excessive hyperbole aside the subject does not meet WP:NBOX. Non-notable amateur boxer.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NBOXING and WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does she meet either.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can I point out that none of the references actually mention her by name? So this is essentially an unreferenced BLP. Their is a claim that she won various titles but there is no proof of this. Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after 10 SERP pages I did not find any indication of the GNG's multiple independent nontrivial reliable sources needed to establish notability, although there was a possible mention here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references mention a Sophie Macleod. I was unable to find any reliable sources that would contribute to notability. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 22:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG and no support for any claims of notability. Jakejr (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries without ice rinks and ice hockey

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

Do we need this orphaned list? Surely by looking at List of ice hockey countries you can see who is not on the list and work out who doesn't play ice hockey. Gbawden (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody writes newspaper articles or produces documentaries about countries that don't play [insert random sport here]. That's probably why this list is entirely without references. Next up, List of countries without McDonald's franchises. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced junk article, and not the first from AaronWikia, who has a growing record both of such hockey-related junk articles and of edit warring regarding the same. I freely admit I loathe articles based around non-subjects such as Chad at the Winter Olympics or Scouting in Vatican City. Ravenswing 07:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No idea what purpose such a list is supposed to serve. Totally unnecessary and irrelevant. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 13:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, a completely unnecessary list. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No idea why this was even created, What next... List of countries without trees?. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was created because the author is throwing a temper tantrum about what happened with List of ice hockey countries. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevance or usefulness what so ever, and definately not encyclopedic. Turgan ^Talk 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless and not sure it's possible to actually verify most countries. Rlendog (talk)
Delete - utterly pointless article, although it is obviously vital to know that no ice hockey is played on the Pitcairn Islands..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afri-culture

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

Website whose article relies entirely on primary and unreliable sources for referencing, with not even one properly reliable source to demonstrate that it actually gets past our inclusion rules for websites. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This website has been featured as a "source" for 2 people's profiles on Wikipedia. If you do not consider the information found on this website to be "reliable" per Wikipedia's standards, then kindly remove this website from every profile on Wikipedia that has listed it as a source/reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavenly89 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the website itself was an unreliable source in articles about other people. I said that the sites that you chose as references to support this article aren't reliable sources for an article about the website. Not the same thing. And that doesn't mean that the website can never qualify for an article, either — come up with reliable sources about the website and the problem magically disappears. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable references to show significance. I will change my opinion if reliable references can be shown to exist. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Customs Clearance China

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

Fails WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 04:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Plenty of coverage in GBooks. It is, for example, discussed on 21 separate pages of "Quick Reference to the Trade and Customs Law of China". James500 (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this page to Customs clearance in China. James500 (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Needs improvement but that is no reason to delete. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important topic. There have been news stories about issues relating to this, so it is certainly notable. Not every country however would also be notable. But for all major trading countries, and even historical entities, such an article could be written. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mavrinac

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

Smalltown mayor (pop 8K) who doesn't get past WP:NPOL for the role, and isn't well-sourced enough to get past WP:GNG either. In fact, the dates of his term as mayor are sourced only to "Joe Mavrinac (Mayor of Kirkland Lake 1980-1997)" as the byline on a review quote on the promotional website of a non-notable book that isn't about him, and his unsuccessful runs for provincial and federal office are sourced to an essay on "political life among the Croatian Canadians" which mentions his name in passing but isn't particularly about him either. This is not "substantive coverage in reliable sources", needless to say. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and the nominator's assessment is accurate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another mayor of an extremely small place where notability is not inherited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close as duplicate nomination for a song already included in another batch. Bearcat (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Am (Christina Aguilera song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Although this song charted on the Korean Singles Chart, the article does not include any third-party sources, thus fais the criteria for a notable song ("Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability."). A possible resolution is to redirect this to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) Simon (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close as duplicate nomination for a song already included in another batch. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I Need (Christina Aguilera song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Although this song charted on the Korean Singles Chart, the article does not include any third-party sources, thus fais the criteria for a notable song ("Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability."). A possible resolution is to redirect this to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) Simon (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity (Christina Aguilera song)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fail WP:NSONGS. Although these song charted on the Korean Singles Chart, the articles do not include any third-party sources, thus fai the criteria for notable songs ("Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability."). A possible resolution is to redirect them to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) Simon (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album) or delete (for all) as the only reliable third-party coverage received is from album reviews. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all since such relevant information within the articles are not from incited citations. IPadPerson (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to parent album article (Bionic). Fail WP:NSONGS due to lack of coverage independent of album reviews. Holiday56 (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Bergstrand

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

Rural mayor who doesn't pass WP:NPOL for the role (the municipality has a population of just 44K), citing only one reliable source and thus not passing WP:GNG either. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be significantly beefed up, but the municipality has to be a lot larger than this before its mayor gets enough presumption of notability to keep a Wikipedia article on the basis of just one reference. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. I searched 11 SERP pages and found several mentions, some election results, but we really need a few substantial in-depth nontrivial reliable independent sources as per the WP:GNG to establish notability. I did not find them, although I found mentions here and here and here and here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politicians are only very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. 180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wellbourne

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

There is no verification that a person named Thomas Wellbourne served in the Virginia House of Burgesses at any time. And certainly this person, who lived from 1640 to 1702, did not serve in 1619. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The years of service and life definitely can't both be correct but there is a source for someone of this name in the House of Burgesses: [19]. I might be inclined to give the new user a little more time or at least offer to userfy. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been extended with available sources (easier to find when one searches under the subject's properly spelled name: Thomas Wellborn). However, all sources are privately published genealogies, not reliable historical records, so we are still left with a person whose notability is suspect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One RS at [20]. A start. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A more reliable genealogy, but still just a genealogy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he was in the House of Burgesses, then that would be sufficient evidence of notability. However, I am not sure we are there yet.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

House of Burgesses Journal May 3, 1699 : [21]. Note: "Welbourn". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - election to a state legislature is sufficient evidence of notability, and the sources cited by 24.151.10.165 demonstrate his term in office.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Since my initial complaint was about the lack of verification of Wellborn's term in office, now that we have that, we can keep the article. Whether we can ever expand on it is questionable, but that's a different issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I also note that there was initially a big problem with the dates - the original version of the article suggested he served in the House before he was even born!--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn

Medical model of autism

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

A quick search through the sources listed turns up no reference to "medical model of autism." Seems to be mostly original research. Holdek (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. A search through Google books turns up some references. --Holdek (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment article was renamed after being moved from draft space. Also, original author is topic banned from edits related to autism. Martin451 02:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most seem to be of the view that Mr. O'Shea doesn't (yet) quite meet our notability standards. If that changes, as seen in substantial coverage in reliable sources, the article can be recreated. Sandstein 17:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colm O'Shea

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

Blatant advertising, which fails WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. This is one of a series of articles, categories: [American hedge fund managers] and [English hedge fund managers]

which assert Zero notability for each entry. Even though there are sources, all the do is confirm the factual content, about how much money they make, education etc and working institution, (working correctly I suppose) of the article, but no real assertions of notability, apart from the fact that they are hedge managers. I would like to take into account the deletion of articles in:

[Category:American hedge fund managers] and
[Category:English hedge fund managers]

scope_creep talk 17:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This piece is about an important British business man who manages one of the largest hedge funds in the world. He has been written about in numerous notable news publications which are linked to in the article, and a chapter in the best selling book Hedge Fund Market Wizards was devoted to him by Jack Schwager. He certainly meets the standards for notibility. There are hundreds of other hedge fund managers listed on wikipedia, many of whom manage significantly smaller funds than Colm O'Shea does, and many of whom are considerably less famous. Here is a link to the categories showing very similar profiles to the one I wrote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_hedge_fund_managers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_hedge_fund_managers. There is nothing promotional about the piece that I have written it is objective, well sourced, and in no way suggest that anyone should invest in his fund.

scope_creep claims that the piece is a blatant advertisement. Could he elaborate on what good or service is being advertised in my piece? Could he compare this piece to the other articles linked to above, such as the American Fund Managers and explain how my piece differs from those pieces? Picking some at random Richard Chilton David Kabiller Martin Shkreli

It would appear based on scope_creep's comments above that he does maybe not approve of the hedge fund industry. While that may be his opinion, these people are still notable under wikipedia standards, and wikipedia would not be improved by people deleting articles about people who work in industries that certain people disapprove of. Religious people could delete the profiles of Mick Jagger explaining there is no real assertions of notability, apart from the fact that they are Rock Musicians and that they are wealthy. If scope_creep does not read the financial press, or disapproves of the financial industry, maybe he should edit articles on topics that he has some knowledge of and appreciation of.

There are probably 50 hedge funds based in the UK that manage over $1 billion, (These are large profitable businesses and important drivers of the UK Economy) I plan on slowly starting wikipedia pages on the most important ones over the next few months. As you can see from my above links the American Fund managers are better represented on Wikipedia than the British ones, even when London is as big a finance hub as New York is. It is neither productive nor helpful having these pieces nominated for deletion. If people feel they are badly written or promotional, they are welcome to edit the article. I based the writing style on other Wikipedia profiles of famous hedge fund managers, and I can not see how my pieces are any different than the existing pieces linked to above.) --Hedgefunding

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have sampled about perhaps 19 of these articles, and they follow roughly the same format. To me, they seem just to be a directory of hedge fund old boys club and business directory on WP, without asserting any notability. scope_creep talk 29:35 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I have sampled about 25 of these articles on English Footballers [[22]] and I have found that they follow a similar format. To me they seem just to be a directory of football old boys club and business directory on WP, without asserting any notability. Hedgefunding (talk)

To be clear, when you google "Colm O'Shea COMAC" The first page of results includes articles in The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The Sunday Times, EFinancial News, Reuters, The Irish Independant, Forbes and Institutional Investor. https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=colm+o'shea+comac This would seem to establish notability. scope_creep seems to have an axe to grind about the finance industry, as he also attempted to delete my article on Ewan Kirk. I would suggest that he should maybe put some effort into writing a few articles himself rather than deleting the work of others. Hedgefunding (talk)

Hi Hedgefunding (talk). I really don't have an axe to grind, on these articles, I can assure you. This is just one of many articles, I looked at today, as part of New Page Patrol. Personally I don't think these articles as they stand, are sound, i.e. legitimate as regarding WP policy of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. If they are notable, the WP:AFD will legitimize them, and they will stay in. Personally, I think most of the articles in those categories, break the Spirit and Letter of WP. scope_creep talk 01:45 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I would expect WP to have a page on COMAC Capital LLP before it was appropriate to have one on its CEO. I see no indication of the scle of funds under management. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other than a brief mention of his income, these are mostly blogs and related sites, and a book review. The Forbes profile is all of three sentences, hardly in depth coverage. The most substantive coverage seems to be an interview in Jack D. Schwager’s book Hedge Fund Market Wizards. See WP:PRIMARY Note #3 about interviews. --Bejnar (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I respectfully disagree with some of the reasoning offered above, on both sides of the debate. "a page on COMAC Capital LLP before ... its CEO" is a classic negative case of WP:OSE ... why not go write the article on COMAC Capital? "Blatant advertising" - the article has so many typos that I think we can be sure that it wasn't written by the guy's PR flack. "Important British business man"? Come on, the guy is a hedgie who probably manages fewer people than a boy scout patrol leader. That said, when I googled COMAC, the first thing that came up was a WSJ article "Comac Capital Trims Staff Amid Losses, Redemptions", Juliet Chung, WSJ, Sept. 6, 2013 - that on its own arguably passes WP:SECONDARY for the guy. There's a bit of a problem with hedge funds and private equity shops which is that, to comply with US securities laws, they limit access to information about the firms, their investments and their strategies (they also do it to add mystique, but that's a debate for another place). This means that a lot of the reliable information is limited to a handful of source like the FT or WSJ or Aust Fin Review plus trade rags. Therefore, at some point we may have to consider a general policy for defining "big league" finance industry figures - like WP:BASEBALL/N but for hedge fund managers. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what I hear you saying is that WP:NOTEBLP and WP:GNG should not apply to hedge fund mangers. Is that correct? If they are "big league" finance industry figures won't there eventually be books written about them? --Bejnar (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my last point was that it may be in the future be desirable to come to a consensus that considers objective criteria for the notability of executives of private financial management businesses, as applies to other individuals like athletes. This might perhaps take account of assets under management and seniority within their company. Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you indicate, we are not there yet, and this is not the proper forum for that discussion. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTEBLP. --Bejnar (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain your evidence for the assertion "still fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTEBLP"? WP:GNG is like pointing us at the bible. WP:NOTEBLP presumes notability if the subject has received significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources - and the article now cites the WSJ, Institutional Investor, Sunday Times - even the Irish Independent, which I've cheerfully added. The cited sources discuss O'Shea's career in varying degrees, from briefly to a fair amount of depth - certainly enough to pass WP:NOTEBLP. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 02:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a hard one because you have to ask: what does it take to be notable in business? Just being successful and earning a lot of money can't be enough, or we'd have hundreds of thousands more people in Wikipedia than we do. I would say that one has to have done something unusual, something that no one else has done, to be notable. For example, Jeff Bezos invented an entirely new way of doing business with Amazon; Henry Ford invented the assembly line; for George Soros wikipedia says "He played a significant role in the peaceful transition from communism to capitalism in Hungary". So the question for the supporters of this article is: what has this person done that makes him unique among the many thousands of investors we could name? LaMona (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A fair point because it raises the general question of notability in financial services. What's notable about him O'Shea has made billions of dollars/Euros/pounds for his investors putting him in the top 50 or so European hedgies. We either need to kick out all hedge fund managers who haven't become notable for some other reason (like saving the planet, or even a small Central European country) or accept that the top 50 or so in each of the US/Europe/Asia-Pac pass WP:GNG. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I agree that making money, even lots of money, is what hedge fund managers do. The references here are weak, too weak IMO, for notability. The first one is a blog post; not a reliable source. The second one is a single photograph among photos of 40 investors; no content about O'Shea. The next 3 are fairly routine news articles about the company (behind paywalls, so I can't see if they say much about him). 6 is another short news article about the company, with a mention of O'Shea. Since there isn't much about him as a person, it might make more sense to have an article on the company that lists him as CIO. That is, if the company itself is notable. LaMona (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing this per SNOW, despite one delete vote (from before significant expansion). Nominator's argument for deletion appears to be taken care of. Discussions about renaming or merging can take place afterwards. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titstare

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

nonnotable application, notable for a brief flurry of news. any evidence it actually exists? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can't be both nonnotable and notable. I'd also support a rename to "Titstare controversy." betafive 02:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: briefly noted, not really notable (as an app or company). However, i do understand that a rename would at least work better. the controversy did get some coverage.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest Titstare is notable due to the widespread coverage of the controversy its announcement spurred; a cursory google search indicates there are far more articles covering it than are cited here. Whether the app itself existed/exists, or whether the development company is notable, is irrelevant. betafive 04:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just read the only references: this isn't a thing, this was a joke ("Just a fun Aussie hack"). People who were there commented on it; it has had no life since. Are we now going to start articles for jokes which have not (yet?) become cultural phenomena? To my way of thinking that would mean Wikipedia is itself somehow just repeating jokes: is that what is meant by encyclopaedic? Testbed (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a PS to my comment above (which was for Delete) I have now read the New York Times piece, not referenced in the article. It strikes me that there would seem to be a need for including this episode in some article on gender and programming, for example by adding it as a case history to Women in computing. Then if a number of notable examples get added, one could spin off an article listing them, of which Titstare would be one. Just a thought. Testbed (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is Titstare about "Women in computing?" You're neglecting to consider that not all people with tits are women (which is a form of transmisogyny) and delegitimizing the experience of the people this app was targeting: those who stare at tits (who are predominantly, but not entirely, men.) betafive 05:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear. Here is why I made the suggestion for one way to resolve this (the headline is a clue). No doubt there are other better ways. I'll move on now. Testbed (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Testbed, you were not unclear at all. How this is not an issue related to women in computing is anyone's guess, and Betafive's reverse charge of transmisogyny should be on a list of dumb things. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trigger-happy deletionism. Plenty of sources worldwide in major publications. A little review, possibly contacting the article creator and looking at the talk page either WP:BEFORE or at least after nominating a new article for deletion, please? I checked before starting the article that mainstream major media reliable sources are still discussing this a year later.[23][[24] The notability is for being a piece of Internet culture, not as an app. As for why the article is named after the app, not coining a name for the controversy, that has to do with WP:COMMONNAME and other MOS issues. If someone adds a "gate" and the name sticks, we can use that name. TitStare Boob Controversy would not e a good name. - Wikidemon (talk)-

Just to be clear, your !vote is for...? betafive 04:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, as I said on the article's talk page, is that this seems a case of WP:109PAPERS. But since there has been a fair bit of material written about the incident, rather than inundate the parent conference/company page with a deluge of opinion snippets from all the talking heads, creating a separate page for it might be a more sensible solution. I don't care to expand this article myself though. I should note that a scandal of smililar of even bigger proportions, Donglegate, only has a small section in another general article on Internet activism. Perhaps a similar home can be found for Titstare too, if we do have an article on sexism controversies in tech or something like that. (There was no hacktivism related to Tistare that I know of, so placing it where Donglegate sits is not suitable.) JMP EAX (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:109PAPERS is a personal opinion essay, not a guideline or policy. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When the two footnotes showing are substantial coverage from The Guardian and The New Yorker, we are already done, per WP:GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor nomination, wp:BEFORE apparently not performed. AFD nominations just to try to force article improvement are disruptive...I am not sure if this is an example of that, but this is a matter of concern if there is a pattern in the nominator's AFD noms. --do ncr am 16:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THERE is NO such pattern to my noms. please dont assume bad faith. if i didnt do a Before, I apologize. i really try to. my reaction was that this doesnt even exist. i now agree that the controversy exists, so im willing to admit my initial rationale was not relevant, and that the debate here is only about whether the controversy is notable. please dont conclude that i am a wild eyed deletionist. im not. i have helped numerous afd's to be better sourced. I sometimes wonder if people realize how hurtful it is to called names online. I am just a volunteer here, if people dont want me to work here, they can run me out of town any time. My wife would be happy if i stopped, so maybe a preemptive block on the assumption that i may one day be a problem here would be a useful step. do we have such a tool? that could be really handy.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've expanded the piece. This was also covered in the national magazine Mother Jones as Beyond Titstare: 8 Other Tech Event Moments That Were Super Awkward for Women. Copious other sources out there. A pretty easy and obvious GNG Keep, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once notable, then something will almost always be notable. This thing passes WP:42. "Wikipedia is not censored." Bearian (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. I have added another source to the article. This was covered by The New York Times, too. I think this could be retitled as "Titstare controversy", but the controversy is certainly notable. The app? Not entirely sure. This can be solved through an rename discussion on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

René Berthiaume

AfDs for this article:

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

Smalltown mayor (pop 10K) who doesn't get past WP:NPOL on that basis, and isn't well-sourced enough to get past WP:GNG either. The history here is that the original deletion discussion took place at a time when the only substantive claim of notability was his unsuccessful candidacy in a federal election, so it was deleted on that basis and then later recreated when he was elected to the mayoralty — so it doesn't qualify for speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but the claim of notability and the volume of sourcing here still aren't actually sufficient to qualify him for inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe WP:G7--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't qualify for G7. I'm not the original author (only the current revision is in any way "my" work) and it's been edited extensively by other people (a condition of G7 is that the original author is also the only substantive author, which I'm not.) Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls far short of notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emi Tomimatsu

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

Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Deep Jewels is a new organization and, unlike Jewels, is not notable. Fails WP:GNG since the only source is the announcement of an upcoming fight card. Jakejr (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She fought several times for Jewels which is top tier but only counts towards WP:MMANOT for title fights and tournament winners. I don't think that was the case here.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. She doesn't appear to have any top tier MMA fights and the only source is a press release of an upcoming fight card. Papaursa (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ensign Records

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

Article has no citations and makes no claim of notability and a Google search turns up little. It has been tagged for no sources since December 2009 and still does not have sources. TheMesquito^buzz 01:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google books and Google newspapers pull up quite a few mentions, including coverage in Billboard, so I suspect it deserves a short article. They released some well-known artists, including the Boomtown Rats and Sinead O'Connor... AdventurousMe (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this falls into the 'obviously notable' category. A huge record label with releases from many major artists. There's enough on GBooks to source it. --Michig (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC) e.g. This article from Billboard for a start. --Michig (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and additional sources like [25], [26], and the sources I added to the article recently. Jinkinson talk to me 14:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage exists (here's a short piece to go with the above findings), along with its notable roster, to support an article. Gongshow talk 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Enouy

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

Snalltown (pop 8K) mayor who doesn't pass WP:NPOL on that basis, and isn't well-sourced enough to get past WP:GNG either. Full disclosure: I created this, at a very different time in Wikipedia's evolution — in 2006, even towns of this modest size could claim notability for their mayors, and you didn't actually need to cite much reliable source coverage as long as the town's website verified that the mayor existed. But those aren't the standards that apply in 2014, so this can't be kept in this state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but maybe set up a list of mayors in the entry for Kirkland Lake to cover these sorts of smalltown politicians? AdventurousMe (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists aren't a bad idea in principle, but for some of these small towns the challenge is actually finding proper sources to create a list with. Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spent hours going through old newspapers on microfiche trying to find the 1919-1930 mayors in a small town (8K to 20K). It was a project for the city hall, who didn't have records that far back. I almost had to go to state archives for the old election returns when some of the newspapers were missing (not filmed) or unreadable. --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. The problem in this case is that the location of suitable microfiche archives and the location of any Wikipedia editors actually able to take on such a project have a virtually zero-to-zero overlap. I certainly have access to archival databases of newspapers in which the occasional mayor of Kirkland Lake might have been named in a news article or two, for example, but not to any newspaper that would ever have provided comprehensive or regular coverage of Kirkland Lake's municipal politics. (I can't even comprehensively finish the "former suburban town" subsections at List of mayors of Sudbury, Ontario with the resources that are available to me, and that's the city where I grew up and do have partial only-after-1999 database access to the Sudbury Star.) Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem User:Bearcat but wouldn't even an incomplete and patchy list be better than not having the info at all? And it seems a shame to lose the core information (name, date of birth, date of death and period of tenure) when it is probably relevant to these small towns and useful. Once a list is started, at least, others can add to it, perhaps including engaged current local residents - and it also means that similar pages that are set up for other smalltown mayors can be easily shifted to the relevant small towns? There seem to be a lot of these minor politicians who, like school principals and academic deans, probably deserve to be on a list somewhere in the body of the institutions they looked after, although most don't merit their own entries. AdventurousMe (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to have a claim for notability and for lack of coverage per nom. --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Márcio Alexandre

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

Non notable MMA fighter since he fails WP:NMMA. Lost his only top tier fight. Jakejr (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the very least WP:TOOSOON. Even with the loss he managed to sign with the UFC so maybe he will make it but better to userfy for now.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this article was created too soon. His eventual meeting of WP:NMMA falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I have no objections if the article is userfied. Papaursa (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Spacek

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

Smalltown (pop 8K) mayor who doesn't pass WP:NPOL on that basis, and isn't well-sourced enough to get past WP:GNG either. Full disclosure: I created this, at a very different time in Wikipedia's evolution — in 2006, even towns of this modest size could claim notability for their mayors, and you didn't actually need to cite much reliable source coverage as long as the town's website verified that the mayor existed. But those aren't the standards that apply in 2014, so this can't be kept in this state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree with Bearcat's asssessment. Even the external link is dead, although Alan Spacek is still mayor, at least through December 2014, and he is running again for mayor, election day October 27, 2014. No significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comes no where near being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Henry Jr

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

No significant independent coverage. Martial arts awards and halls of fame do not show notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And neither does self awarded rank.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seeing the number of "halls of fame" into which he has been inducted, indicates that he has at least a claim for notability, even if the article currently has only one source. Nonetheless, I did not find him listed at the United States Martial Arts Hall of Fame, that may be because he was inducted before they started posting the names on-line. The "International Karate Magazine" does not appear to have a website, nor does the "National Martial Arts Hall of Fame", nor the "International Martial Arts Institute" unless that is the "Ji Dao International Martial Arts Institute" (or one of several others, such as Lifeway). I see that this listing of martial arts halls of fame has a note that reads: Many "Halls of Fame" allow persons to nominate themselves for induction (for a fee) and a person searching for a martial arts instructor should not look only at induction into a Hall of Fame as credentials for the teaching of a martial art. While is it possible that the Beikoku Karate-Do Goyukai (BKG) style of martial arts is notable (although I am dubious about that), that doesn't make its founder notable. I found mostly related sites, blogs and facebook pages. I did find two uploaded obits, none from a reliable source. Apparently, Mr. Henry had been employed at Monmouth College Police for 20 years before retiring as the Chief of Police in 1988. [Obituary for Isaac Henry, O'Brien Funeral Home]. The lack of reliable sources may be because his active period was before the web took off, in which case, proponents need to do some paper-based library research. --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Yuan

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

Article has no independent reliable sources and no indication that he is notable as a martial artist or entertainer/stunt man. Fails WP:MANOTE, WP:ENT, and WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. There's also nothing to support claims he's notable as a martial artist or stuntman. I'll reconsider if good sources are presented. Papaursa (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, subject has received passing mention in several reliable sources but none appear to give the subject significant coverage. While the subject has been in multiple movies, that is insufficient to pass WP:NACTOR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Oke

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

Smalltown (pop 9K) mayor who doesn't pass WP:NPOL on that basis, and isn't well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but maybe create a list of mayors in the article for South Huron? AdventurousMe (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not NPOL. Cowlibob (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect Fails WP:BASIC.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too small a place to give a mayor notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect at editorial discretion. Sandstein 17:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Finnie

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

Smalltown (pop 10K) mayor who doesn't pass WP:NPOL on that basis, and isn't well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect With local/routine coverage only, the topic fails WP:BASIC.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small town mayors are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith D. Yates

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

An article about another martial artist who created his own art and made himself a 10th dan. He fails to meet WP:MANOTE and notability is not inherited by learning from or spending time with notable martial artists. Jakejr (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not supported by references.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims of notability are not supported by independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Whale

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

Unnotable locomotive engineer. Even the class he introduced was just an extension of a previous one. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable. This is the man that transformed the LNWR locomotive department, eliminating double-heading; he began the process of replacement of the complicated and inefficient Webb compounds, and "the class he introduced was just an extension of a previous one" is far from the mark. He introduced four new classes, the first of which was an entirely new design, and the other three were based on that one; a fifth was on order at the time of his retirement. These five classes totalled 515 locomotives, and then there were the rebuilds of Webb's locos. Whale's successors, Bowen Cooke and Beames, used Whale's designs as the basis for their own locomotives. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. H. P. M. Beames is the one who introduced one class (LNWR 380 Class) which was "just an extension of a previous one". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. The pre-Afd version of the article was pretty useless (minnowish?), but it looks much better now. Why do I have the feeling I'm being railroaded? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.There are a lot of entries for people on Wikipedia that frankly should not be there if you apply this criteria. This is a reasonably good quailty article and well -referenced. It would be a shame to lose it. If people are interested they will read it - I don't think we should lose it. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Snax

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

Non-notable band, fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Limited to no reliable sources available online to confirm information in article or provide substantial content. StarScream1007 ►Talk 00:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, it previously had a redirect to Linkin Park, which probably should be reinstated. Appears to be a high school band as per [[27]] --Karst Talk 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non notable band. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. TheQ Editor (Talk) 21:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBAND. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Van Bynen

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

Completely unsourced article about a mayor of a town in the 80K population range — which is large enough that he might qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, certainly, but even the mayor of the largest city on the planet wouldn't be entitled to keep an unsourced stub with no real substance beyond saying he's the mayor. I'm willing to withdraw this if the article's content and sourcing can be substantively improved, but not for a three-line permastub. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there may be some coverage as in [28] [29] but does not meet the criteria at WP:POL - — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQ Editor (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets minimum relevance criteria for being the mayor of a medium town for 8 years and councillor before that. Main problem with the original article was that it had not a single neutral source. I have added some sources, including a national newspaper interview. -- Taketa (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Taketa: All of them are invalid primary sources.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi @180.172.239.231:, I have added some more sources to the article. Feedback is appreciated. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for that, Taketa. Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christine_Horner_MD&action=edit AND http://www.amazon.com/Christine-Horner-M.D/e/B00FDTVG10/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0.

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christine_Horner_MD&action=edit AND http://www.amazon.com/Christine-Horner-M.D/e/B00FDTVG10/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0.

[1]