Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 December	4 December >

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HintonBurdick Grand Canyon Trophy

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

Another rivalry that fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY, no national sources that indicates this is considered a rivalry, just local blogs. Delete Secret ^account 23:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable rivalry trophy for an arguably non-notable college football "rivalry". Subject trophy does not satisfy the applicable notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to !vote on this, but it raises the question about what to do about the other rivalries in the Big Sky Conference football rivalry navbox. A lot of those and lot of the games in List of NCAA college football rivalry games look pretty minor to me. Where I grew up, there was always a lot of local interest in the Apple Cup, but not much outside Washington State. The only national attention that Apple Cup mentions is 2008, when it was noticed because that year it was between two of the worst teams in college football. But, it's important locally. If we leave this in place, over time it will accumulate cites. Such is the nature of college football. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, the Apple Cup has most of the characteristics of a traditional college rivalry: two universities that share a long history, a common recruiting base, are rivals outside football and/or other sports, two major universities within the same state, and most alumni view the schools as rivals. It also has attracted a lot of regional, if not national coverage, as a rivalry game. Here's a 2014 example: [1]. Compare the coverage of the Apple Cup to that of the Hinton-Burdick Trophy, and you will see a significant difference in the depth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding significant, independent coverage of the type expected under WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY to establish that this relatively brief series (did not even become an annual event until 2008) was or is a sufficiently notable rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 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. The arguments presented here for keep mostly amount to it should be kept because previous AfDs found it notable. I'm not accepting that as a valid rationale, if it were then we would simply not allow renominations, at least on the same grounds. It is still necessary to present at this AfD sources that are supposed to meet GNG. Of course, I would not delete on the mere technicality that someone forgot to provide some links, but I am not seeing any sources either in the article or the previous debates that cannot reasonably be considered WP:ROUTINE or just mentions. Thus the delete camp has the more solid policy based argument, as well as being in the majority. The only other argument presented for keeping was by user Carrite who thought that this "is the sort of information that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia". Carrite, I find myself agreeing with you (and the opposite pertains, much that is provably "notable" has no business in an encyclopedia). Unfortunately, that argument has no basis in policy, WP:N is the cornerstone of our criteria for inclusion. SpinningSpark 19:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK Community Issues Party

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

A representative of the subject has request deletion of this article via OTRS (Ticket#2014112810014127). Their argument is that they did not give permission for their political party to be included in Wikipedia, and that the information was posted without their knowledge or consent. I am filing this claim at their request, and offer no opinion of my own on whether it should be deleted or not. Yunshui ^雲 _水 23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous AfD as GNG unless they are claiming a copyright violation. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are extremely weak, mostly primary links to databases, and there is very little evidence of 3rd party reliable sources. The only 3rd party reliable sources linked to here mention the party only in passing. Per the OTRS nomination (and I've seen the original email) the subject would like to be deleted with a fairly... interesting... set of legal claims which are not likely to be of any consequence in the real world, but which do suggest that this political party is UNlikely to achieve notability anytime soon. No notability today, little chance of notability tomorrow, says to me: delete. Just !voting as an ordinary community member here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and other policies on notability. doktorb _words^deeds 06:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD. Definitely seems that the party is gone for good, but it was there and was a gadfly at some point, enough to draw some non-trivial coverage in small-town media. Should note that I have absolutely no connection to anything involved in this article except that I happened upon it during its first AfD nomination and decided to trawl for more sources at that point. Avram (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to full Keep from weak, on reading the GetSurrey pieces again. I'm seeing little reason to re-nom after the 3rd AfD years ago that reached consensus, and I'm uncomfortable with the apparently charged context of this nomination. Avram (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this meets WP:ORG. It has the feel of a political party run out of a basement by three people. The vast majority of those refs are about what the party does, not about the party. We can't have an article cited almost exclusively to primary sources, and I couldn't find much else out there. It's not a good sign when the first GHits on something are Wikipedia pages (including templates!). If and when it actually does something noteworthy it should be easy to prove it is notable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A couple of interesting points first - despite any "legal claims" that hold about as much water as a broken glass, if a party in a politics is notable it's going to have a page. No permission has to be given for the party to be included in Wikipedia - it's public domain. Such a demand is hilarious and no wonder these individuals don't have much notariety. What do they want? To stay a secret until it's time to 'reveal the big plan"? With that said, as Jimbo Wales said, the sources are weak and don't really speak on the party itself. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 16:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I respect Wikipedia and what it stands for and what it has achieved. I also highly respect Jimmy Wales and I fully agree with his comment of 5 December 2014 about UK Community Issues “suggest that this political party is UNlikely to achieve notability anytime soon. No notability today, little chance of notability tomorrow, says to me: delete”

In another comment from a different person on 6th December 2014 “If and when it actually does something noteworthy it should be easy to prove it is notable” I fully agree delete.

Again another comment from a different person on 7th December 2014 “no wonder these individuals don't have much notariety. What do they want? To stay a secret until it's time to 'reveal the big plan" Weak delete. Again I agree with this, there is no big plan.

UK Community Issues is a minor organisation that was started by a small group of ordinary people who were victims of the NHS (National Health Service) due to the covering up and closed ranks when medical mistakes/errors were made. In the U.K. this covering up is so deep throughout the government departments to the Prime Minister.

Victims of the system can have their health damaged, lives destroyed, forced to live in poverty and may have a young family. They are unable to get justice to prove what happened to them. You lose your trust in the system and do not want to become a part of it.

This is not about wanting to be famous or to lie to the public to be elected. Politicians usually join large parties to be elected but do not necessarily represent the views of their constituents and will mostly tow the party line.

As a human being with a conscience, you have to look at the facts. If you join a well-established major political party in the U.K. with a large following, stand for office and get elected, and you are aware of the extent of covering-up with people living in poverty turning to food banks but turn a blind eye you then become part of the problem. At the same time, politicians claim privileges to live a better life than those they are supposed to be serving. If you have a strong view that Tony Blair should stand trial for war crimes then you are more likely to be isolated within those major political parties. I strongly believe the best way forward is not to become a part of the circle, who only think about what they say to get the next vote.

There are bigger international issues Wikipedia could concentrate on. I strongly believe that to delete all the information on UK Community Issues is the best way forward.

This is the 4th time that UK Community Issues has been nominated to be deleted. If Wikipedia takes notice of its followers and respect what their followers are saying then it should delete all the articles and information you hold about UK Community Issues on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not go into this process a 5th time. The message is clear: Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete.

As this is the 4th time, it should not be the matter of debate. This is not the case of copyrights and legal matters. The fact that there have been 4 nominations for UK Community Issues to be deleted is overwhelming. Just Delete!

Wwilberforce 14:18, 8 December 2014 (GMT) — Wwilberforce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Found notable at AfD in 2009; notability is not temporary. I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion of articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections since this is the sort of information that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I receieved the following message from Yunshui: "Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Community Issues Party (4th nomination). Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲水 08:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)".

I thought people on Wikipedia had the freedom to debate. However, this is not the case. It seems like Wikipedia restricts those who want to comment further on debates.

Wwilberforce 16:34, 12 December 2014 (GMT) — Wwilberforce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you would like to comment in this discussion - as in, comment on whether or not the article in question meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion - then you are welcome to do so. What you may not do is move other users' comments, demand to debate unrelated political issues instead, remove valid tags or edit war to retain your inappropriate demands. Such editing disrupts the process of discussion and makes it more difficult for the community to establish a consensus. As long as you are discussing the subject at hand - namely, whether or not this article should be included in Wikipedia - you may continue commenting here to your heart's content. Yunshui ^雲 _水 17:14, 12 December 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. There is no possible delete closure on the !votes given, although I note Secret's comment. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Nationalist Party (UK)

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

Non notable, defunct party without any notable or important electoral results, no evidence of significant role in English or British politics, nothing to indicate any electoral role in recent elections, and no evidence of credible third party sources proving notability as measured by Wikipedia guidelines. doktorb _words^deeds 09:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's defunct is a stupid argument. So are the vast majority of parties that have articles on Wikipedia including many very famous ones (Whigs, Liberals etc) - it's a non-argument.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that is a repository of knowledge. Researchers and readers that come across New Nationalist Party elsewhere or even in Wikipedia are supposed to find out more.... where?

Nominator says there is "no evidence of credible third party sources". What? BBC News, Searchlight, Birmingham City Council, Electoral Commission - not reliable?!!

Nominator says "nothing to indicate any electoral role in recent elections". Again, same applied to the vast majority of parties that have articles, but the article does make it clear that this party was dissolved in 2009 so what's surprisingh about that. Another non-argument.

No "notable or important electoral results" - well it didn't win that's for sure, but this also applied to the vast majority of parties that have articles, just within UK.

The NNP was a significant though temporary development in the history of far right politics in the UK and an important part in the narrative of the break up of the BNP. Sharon Ebanks and others invovled in it have been major players in all of this.

It should be noted that the nominator has embarked on a crusade to delete a whole series of articles on political parties that he deems non-notable; when an AfD is declined, he returns later and makes another nomination, and another. There does not seem to be any effort to actually assess what significance a party has/had or to consider any of them within a wider context. Emeraude (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emeraude, your first point invalidates the rant which follows. Yes, the Whigs are defunct, but they are demonstrably notable and made quite an impact on British political history. Can you answer the direct question - "Is the New Nationalist Party making an impact on British political history"?

As for the wider point about being on some kind of crusade against Wikipedia articles; again, you are wrong. I am aware that there are very well regarded Wikipedia policies against this site being a collection of indiscriminate material. I am merely keeping up that policy brief: Wikipedia is not a dump for every single piece of human knowledge. doktorb _words^deeds 15:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. If the first reason you give for deleting this article is that the party is defunct, then it's entirely logical that other defunct parties should also go. You're not suggesting that - and neither am I - but is's a spurious argument to put up as your main rationale. I noticed that in the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (5th nomination) you stated that "The Whigs are self evidently notable"; "demonstrably notable" is a bit of an improvement, but neither is a counter to me saying that being defunct is not a rationale for deletion. As for your crusade, it certainly seems that way. It is true that there a number of so-called parties that really are just one person having a bit of fun and, by and large, these could be deleted, but in this case (and Libertarian Party) we are dealing with genuine parties that have had some part, however small, in the deveopment of (right wing) politics in the UK and to delete them leaves readers in total ignorance when they come across their names in other Wikipedia articles, or in the real world and they want Wikipedia to give some information. It's minor role, compared to the Whigs, is amply reflected in the minimal ampount of space that the article occupies. Emeraude (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that User:Keresaspa, a long time and respected editor with considerable expertise on right wing extremism, has added detail to the article, including more references to add to those which you earlier falsely described as having "no evidence of credible third party sources". Emeraude (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emeraude, you are focusing on one element of my nomination without looking at the whole. This party is a) not notable, and b) defunct. The latter would not be worth much as a reason to delete the article *on its own* were it not for the first factor. As I have said, and you have ignored, defunct parties such as the Whigs are clearly notable, their history speaks for themselves. I ask again, as you have ignored, can you answer the direct question "Is this party notable?" doktorb _words^deeds 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, being defunct is of no relevance whatsoever and it does not strengthen your first assertion that the party is not notable. It is worth looking at Wikipedia:Notability here which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Emeraude (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no idea of why doktorbuk keep nominating an AfD on the basis of importance (which may not be a valid criteria for an AfD nomination), ignoring the fact that a subject is notable, if it has received significant coverages in reliable sources. Wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability not on the basis of achievement alone. Wikicology (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable per WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. For me some of these nominations do have merit but this one clearly has the requisite multiple reliable third party sources. Keresaspa (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secret ^account 23:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's note I really don't see where it meets WP:GNG, all the sources at a quick glance reads like passing mentions. I relisted it in order to evaluate the sources further and I'm strongly against any non-admin closure here . Secret ^account 23:26, 3 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Madison–Old Dominion football rivalry

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

"Rivalry" only consisted of four games before conference change. No indication this "rivalry" ever met WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY. Unsuccessful in finding national sources that indicate this was ever considered a major "rivalry", which makes this article original research. Secret ^account 22:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a significant rivalry. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a whole body of analysis that we normally go through to determine whether (1) a college sports rivalry actually exists between two college sports teams (and, yes, a "rivalry" is more than just two teams who have played each other many times), and (2) whether that rivalry is notable per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. In this case, there is no need to got through that whole analysis: common sense suggests that there is no such thing as a meaningful "rivalry" between two teams that have only played ~~twice~~ four times. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I googled, it was 4 times as the article is out of date, but your point is clear, there is no such thing as a "rivalry" if the team only played two/three/four times and its unlikely to play further. Secret ^account 00:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a significant historical rivalry. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all of the above. Cbl62 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for the Silver Mace

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

"Rivalry" only consisted of five games before conference change. No indication this "rivalry" ever met WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY. Unsuccessful in finding national sources that indicate this was ever considered a major "rivalry", which makes this article original research. Secret ^account 22:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a whole body of analysis that we normally go through to determine whether (1) a college sports rivalry actually exists between two college sports teams (and, yes, a "rivalry" is more than just two teams who have played each other many times), and (2) whether that rivalry is notable per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. In this case, there is no need to go through that whole analysis: common sense suggests that there is no such thing as a meaningful "rivalry" between two teams that have only played three times. That this "rivalry" has a cutesy name strongly suggests that this is another attempt to manufacture an artificial "rivalry" for local media purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This brief, and now discontinued, series between two small college sports teams does not rise to the level of a significant rivalry of the type required to pass WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 10 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dam Cup

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

Promotional fluff created by a local university to create a "rivalry" between the two college teams when there isn't one according to media. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. Delete Secret ^account 22:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself points out that this rivalry does not actually exist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college rivalry. Does not satisfy applicable guidelines with significant coverage as a rivalry in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in time, this may become a significant rivalry. Right now, it isn't. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the sources cited in the article confirm that the "Dam Cup" was created as a marketing ploy by the school's athletic departments in 2010. Ref 1 puts it well: "nothing spells 'artificial rivalry' like 'inventing a trophy that holds no significance.'" Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY due to lack of coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. (non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Romania

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

advertising, tourist guide The Banner talk 21:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While aspects of the article are promotional, this can be addressed by copy editing it. Outright deletion of the entire article seems excessive, especially since the topic passes WP:N. Some source examples include, but are not limited to:

Tourism in the New Europe: The Challenges and Opportunities of EU Enlargement. pp. 256-265.
"Dracula tourism in Romania Cultural identity and the state". Annals of Tourism Research. pp. 746–765.
"Rural tourism and livelihood strategies in Romania". Journal of Rural Studies. pp. 152–162.
OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2012. pp. 397-402
The Report: Romania 2008. pp. 98-100.
Geography of Travel and Tourism. pp. 286-287.
Yahoo News article
The Financial Times article
International Medical Travel Journal article

–NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -because subject meets the standard of inclusion and wp:deletion is not cleanup. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to what policies should this be deleted? Nergaal (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While The Banner is correct in saying much of the article reads like a travel brochure and WP:BLOWITUP might be one way to go, copyediting (and sourcing!) should be tried first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - me, from a HUGE fan of WP:TNT! - this is so important and obviously notable a topic, that somebody should be able to fix it through the normal editing process. I haven't been to Romania, nor do I feel comfortable editing the topic, so someone else will have to rescue this one. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is promotional but that is not a reason to delete. Frmorrison (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NorthAmerica's sources. Also any mention of wp:TNT in an AFD is a red flag that notability is present. Implicit in anyone's call for TNT is recognition that there is a valid topic present; the wp:TNT essay is simply invalid and goes against core Wikipedia principles, such as that contributors will be recognized for their contributions by GFDL and its replacement license that ensure credit. No matter if an article is greatly revised and all original language is changed, the original creator(s) deserve credit for getting it started, frankly. --do ncr am 02:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inherently notable but needs cleaning up.Charles (talk) 00:02, 9 December 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 Tourism in Romania. czar ⨹ 20:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial and creative tourism in Romania

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

advertising The Banner talk 21:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per International Journal of Energy and Environment and GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Another option is a potential merge to Tourism in Romania. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tourism in Romania. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is reasonable here: both articles need copy-editing and additional sources, so it couldn't hurt to mix them up. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 4 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UAB–Memphis rivalry

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

Article was previously kept in AFD, but with flawed rationales (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or meets GNG without sources to back it up). No indication this "rivalry" ever met WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY. Unsuccessful in finding national sources that indicate this was ever considered a major "rivalry", which makes this article original research. UAB since disbanded their football program so its very unlikely these two teams will face again. Delete Secret ^account 19:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2013, Memphis moved into the American Athletic Conference while UAB remained in Conference USA. Neither team scheduled the other in either football or basketball from that point forward. American college football schedules are typically made out years in advance and neither school had the other on their upcoming schedules. In 2014, UAB decided to discontinue football which makes it physically impossible for the two schools to play in this sport. UAB shutting down football program Neither school has played each other in men's basketball since the 2012-2013 season. Delete --Gregchilders 15:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregchilders (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding significant coverage of the type expected under WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY to establish that this brief, and now discontinued, series between non-major programs was a sufficiently notable rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 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. czar ⨹ 06:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shengzu Gu

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

WP:BLP of a professor, just asserting his existence as a professor and failing to make or source any claim of notability that would actually get him over WP:ACADEMICS. Was previously tagged for speedy, but that was declined by another admin as "making a claim of notability" — I don't actually see one myself, but regardless of any pointless debate about whether it's really claiming enough notability to survive a speedy, it certainly isn't claiming enough to escape the AFD process. Delete unless a more substantive claim of notability and some real reliable sources can actually be added. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says so little about the subject that this could plausibly be an A7 speedy deletion. Google scholar gives him an h-index of 11, not enough to convince me of notability via WP:PROF#C1, and anyway even if the number were higher we'd still need to find something nontrivial and sourceable to say about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article easily surpassed the standard needed to avoid A7 before most of it was (rightly) removed as a direct copy from his resume. And I would expect GScholar to substantially underestimate the h-index of a Chinese academic at a Chinese university whose research is almost entirely about China, particularly when apparently using only the English version of his name and (presumably as a consequence) only finding works in English - one would expect the bulk of the subject's publications to be in Chinese. And if, as the article previously slightly cryptically seemed to list, he is a member of the current Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, he presumably meets WP:POLITICIAN (and probably WP:PROF#C7). However, without reliable sources (to at least verifiability standard) for at least some of the detail in his resume, all this is unfortunately rather beside the point. PWilkinson (talk) 14:38, 29 November 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 19:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. We are not Linkedinpedia. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 4 December 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. czar ⨹ 06:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Desrosiers

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

Non-notable junior hockey player who fails to meet both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 27 November 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 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ravendrop 20:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apparently a good player, but not outstanding enough for article at his level. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murugan (actor)

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

This page was first speedily deleted in 2012 after it was nominated (by me) for deletion and then the author, who admitted he was the person who was the subject of the page, blanked the page. It has now been recreated by an SPA. The new page adds a few more minor roles in films, but the only reference is to a self-produced site, and searches of the internet come up with nothing better. I will reconsider if significant RS can be found in Tamil or Malayalam. Michitaro (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 21 November 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, czar ⨹ 15:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability in sources- possible self-publicity--Mevagiss (talk) 13:18, 28 November 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 19:21, 3 December 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation after two relistings. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meathook (band)

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

Non-notable band. No reliable sourcing. Shnguyy (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 21 November 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, czar ⨹ 15:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the subject of the article does not meet the criteria for musicians and ensembles at Wikipedia:Notability (music): the band has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. - tucoxn\^talk 01:51, 27 November 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 19:12, 3 December 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. (SOFTDELETE). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion Machine

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

This article is about a Russian metal band. Previously, the article was at Articles for Creation (got G13'd), which was originally declined for not being notable enough. After it was declined, the editor then created the article proper with the same material added into it. I recently submitted it for speedy deletion, but was declined and was suggested to take it to AfD. So here we are now. As I still believe it fails WP:BAND. GamerPro64 14:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the administrator who declined the speedy deletion. The article appeared borderline to me. I was tempted to just delete it, except for two things: (1) I could not be certain of the notability of the two record labels that have signed the band — which, if notable, would qualify the band under WP:BAND criterion #5; and (2) one or two of the references (particularly drugmetal.ru) provided decent coverage, so I thought it's possible that more coverage might be out there (meeting criterion #1), given the band's success at getting signed onto labels that don't seem to be their own vanity label.
If those record labels aren't important indie labels in Russia, and the band doesn't actually have significant mainstream or even genre-specific national coverage in Russia, then yes, I'd speedy-delete it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 21 November 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, czar ⨹ 15:48, 26 November 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 19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is relisted for too long without further discussion, and given the ambiguity of notability here, I suggest the closing admin (I won't do it, I'm WP:INVOLVED) delete it as a WP:SOFTDELETE, which would be the same as if deleted by a WP:PROD. That way, the article can be restored at a later time for further improvement by a request at WP:REFUND. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They're just up-and-coming it seems. I'm not really finding much other than the standard website, youtube, lastFM hits, etc. If you check out Reverb Nation you'll see their stats are still quite low. They'll come around eventually like most, but for now they're just not quite there yet. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:48, 10 December 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. czar ⨹ 06:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German Broadcasting Company (GBC)

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

fails WP:GNG because only information about the tv station is available from its website. Therefore its uncertain if it meets WP:BROADCAST.

An IP has requested this deletion because it said the station was a hoax [2] Avono (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no sources on Google. The website was made via this, which appears to let people set up web pages for free. (And by the way, why would a German station have an English name?) Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article very like this one was deleted several months ago - see WP:Articles for deletion/German Broadcasting Company. WP:CSD G4? PWilkinson (talk) 21:47, 29 November 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 19:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't seem to find any other info on this station. GBC TV gives me search results on Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation. Maybe if there was a German name we could search with that but, with the previous Afd, it's looking pretty hoax-like. Fuebaey (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment - Not finding coverage in reliable sources for this company. However, a German Broadcasting Company did exist during the early- to mid-20th century in Germany. Here are some source examples verifying this: [3], [4], [5], [6]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: thanks for being bold! this looks very interesting will be starting to make a stub in my user space. Avono (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Oops, the original article is here Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft maybe instead Redirect to there instead? Avono (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect to Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft. Redirect target verified per [7]. (Modified my initial !vote above.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 ~~(which seems to have already done)~~. Already deleted once earlier this year. Redirect to Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft is definitely appropriate for the bare GBC article, but this didn't improve at all from the first draft that suggested Sky Deutschland was going to end their DSS service for one oddly English-titled over-the-air channel, and this one isn't any better. Nate • (chatter) 05:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please note that the article states a channel launch on April 1 (April Fools' Day). The most contents 'offered' by this 'service' are held by several different stations in Germany, some even exclusively. The statement that the GBC is part of the 'Universum Studio Germany' is also misleading, as 'Universum Studio Germany' seems to be a hoax as well, and not to be confused with 'Universum Film AG (UFA)'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expmeno (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 December 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. We're coming just shy of a month now and I don't think that relisting a third time is actually going to help. There's debate over how much notability is given by coverage and while there may be a difference of opinions AfD is based on consensus of which there is none. You're certainly more than welcome to ask me to revert and have a sysop close this if you wish Anetode - I have no problem reverting myself but I believe the decision would remain the same. No qualms with speedy renomination. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Sibrel

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, 1BLP - vanity article written by some cab driver who made 4 utterly non-notable "documentaries" and was documented in an altercation with Buzz Aldrin. Half of the citations come from primary source material published to promote his productions a decade back. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he is notable for only one event and all his films are self published. Alligators1974 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Found these WP:RS without too much effort.

Scwartz, John (July 13, 2009). "Vocal Minority Insists It Was All Smoke and Mirrors". New York Times. 3 paragraphs.
Hitt, Jack (February 9, 2003). "Luna-tics". New York Times Magazine. 5+ paragraphs.
Launius, Roger D. (January 2010). "Denying the Apollo Moon Landings: Conspiracy and Questioning in Modern American History" (PDF). 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned as a member of a notable movement in an article on the movement itself is insufficient grounds for establishing notability. The available sources, while they do mention the article's subject by name, do not constitute significant coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:49, 27 November 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, czar ⨹ 15:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my !vote in the last AfD. If reliable sources such as NYT and The Washington Times are giving the person significant coverage 7 years after the one event, then either the person is notable for other reasons, or WP:BLP1E criterion 3 does not apply: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph is not significant coverage, moreover the articles all concern the fringe movement, of which he is a part, but not the "lead" story. His exploits are always brought up as an example punctuated by the aforementioned 1BLP Buzz Aldrin incident. The incident itself could be a blurb in Aldrin's biography due to his notability, but it's hardly true that everyone ever decked in public by a celebrity deserves an article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Times article is focused solely on him and is a fairly substantial piece. The Buzz Aldrin incident is mentioned in two sentences in the middle of a 1100-word article on him. Lesser Cartographies' second source is a large article almost entirely about him which mentions the Aldrin incident only briefly, these seem to contradict the idea that this one event is his sole claim to notability. I also disagree that a paragraph or three in the NYT does not count towards significant coverage. In my opinion, small but not merely passing coverage in a highly significant newspaper is worth more as far as WP:GNG is concerned than a full-page article in a tabloid. There is nothing that I know of in the notability guidelines that says that a subject needs to be the "lead" story for an article to be considered significant coverage of them. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punching Aldrin makes him notable for one event only - based on that we might as well create a page for the guy who had a fight with John Prescott.Alligators1974 (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC) delete he's a deluded, self-importance non-entity. Alligators1974 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 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 19:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~He is a non-entity and infamous for one event only. (Is there a page of other conspiracy nutters he could be merged with?)Alligators1974 (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD czar ⨹ 12:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories, where he is already covered. LaMona (talk) 00:32, 10 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Javeri

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

I see no adequate evidence of notability here-- the references are not usable. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable. Harsh (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Subject doesn't meet the WP:BIO, WP:GNG or even WP:ANYBIO standard. But looking at their contribution in multiple notable films, to me it appears that WP:ENT crtieria #3 may be cited for their notability which states, "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:42 and every other means of proving notability. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think he fails WP:ENT too. Dubbing roles weren't unique or innovative. Prolific might be hundreds of roles, not a dozen. He'd have to be mentioned somewhere other than in film credits. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 02:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venmaranalloor Matom

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

Unsourced original research, no evidence of notability. Drm310 (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 27 November 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 19:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7 No evidence of notability with no coverage in reliable sources. Written by COI editor as possible AUTOBIO for self-promotion. Cowlibob (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -An autobiography written by single-purpose account to promote themselves has no sign of significance (search results, -1, 2). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable by online sources. Maybe he does exist, but he has no online presence or Internet fingerprint. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 4 December 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. Of note is that the nominator has essentially withdrawn their nomination per their "weak keep" !vote within the discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD

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

I don't believe that this person is notable enough for a listing, he largely seems to have served as a CEO of a company that isn't all that well-known. Also, I believe that the person who created the article has a close relation with the subject as they have only created edits on NQ Mobile Inc and related topics. Shritwod (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no affiliation with the company. The CEO was pictured in Time magazine in 2010 http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2017050_2017049_2017041,00.html and is one of the youngest teachers from the Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nq-mobiles-henry-lin-we-have-been-a-global-company-from-day-one/. Additionally he started one of the leading security companies in China. http://www.weforum.org/contributors/henry-lin-yu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgeurts (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are we talking about the same Lin Yu? It's a remarkably common name from China; yet another Lin Yu is an old friend of mine. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian, If you know a Dr. Lin who runs a multi-million dollar mobile services company in China then chances are it's your old friend and you should give him a ring. :) Rgeurts (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonable media coverage and reasonable assertions of notability. -M.Altenmann >t 04:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, there's a COI problem, but he's CEO of a NYSE-listed company and had a nice writeup in Time Magazine. The article needs to be toned down, though, and we need to lose the "PhD" on the end of the article title. John Nagle (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, and lose Dr. in tile as well :) -M.Altenmann >t 23:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I took the Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD from the web h ttp://executives.findthebest.com/l/115869/Dr-Henry-Yu-Lin-PhD and noticed later on some pages it was Henry Lin Yu http://www.weforum.org/contributors/henry-lin-yu and it's Dr. Henry Lin on other webpage articles http://www.mobilevillage.com/visionaries-nq/. I'm not sure what the page name should be please advise. Rgeurts (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NC-CHN#Order of names John Nagle (talk) 08:05, 1 December 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 18:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to keep, since it has been moved. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I proposed the deletion of this and have reservations about the edits surrounding NQ Mobile and its activities, but I think consensus was achieved on this already. Shritwod (talk) 12:06, 5 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kasia Wrobel

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

Fails to establish WP:N. Article reads like a resume. References are listing or pictures and are trivial in nature. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a ref to it, but don't know if its reliable. I don't know Polish to be honest.--Mishae (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:42. The New Yorker source is merely a listing. I'd change my !vote if somebody could find three more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: Haven't you seen the other 2 sources?--Mishae (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mishae, yes, of course I look at the sources, but the Elle article has only a brief mention and one single image of the model, and the other does not look like a reliable source. Bearian (talk)
Weak delete. So far the sources in the article offer only a paragraph at best, little more. WP:TOOSOON? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not nearly enough coverage in the sources. I counted a total of 10 sentences from the three sources, one of which is only a listing, not an article. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON, if ever. LaMona (talk) 00:46, 10 December 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 czar ⨹ 06:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Sysoyenko

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

Non-notable person. Although WP:POLITICIAN lists the holding of a national-level office as one of its criteria, it is important to remember that the guideline in question states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" (emphasis added). In this case, there does not appear to be any significant independent coverage available. The single independent article I could find (this piece from the BBC) reflects the fact that, although the Samopomich party took third place in the October 26 election, almost nothing is known about the slate of candidates they had proposed. (Apparently in Ukraine, one votes for a party, not the candidate. The party publishes a list of candidates, and based on the number of seats they win, they fill those seats from the top of their candidate list. Sysoyenko was number 25 on a list of 61 candidates.[8]) Given that there is no significant independent coverage, I think WP:GNG has to prevail over the presumed likely notability of WP:POLITICIAN in this case. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO also says that an article about a person who fails the basic criteria but meets the additional criteria should be merged into a broader topic, which, for a politician, will typically be a list of members of the legislature. This precludes deletion of any article satisfying WP:POLITICIAN on grounds of notability. James500 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, there does not appear to be such a list on en.wiki. The closest candidate would be Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2014 except that Sysoyenko is not mentioned by name in that article, nor should she be. (She appears to have been simply one person on a list, and that list was elected en masse; she does not appear to have played any part in the actual campaign.) So, that redirect would violate the principle of least surprise (redirects should point to pages that actually mention the redirect subject in some meaningful fashion). With no valid target for a redirect, what are we to do except delete? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BIO says "If no article currently exists into which the person can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written." Is there some reason why such a list cannot be created? James500 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is an article on the uk.wiki (https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Верховна_Рада_України_VIII_скликання), so I suppose an effort can be made to translate that to English, and then redirect the current target to that translated list. Any takers? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:59, 29 November 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 18:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we've longstanding consensus that members of national legislatures are notable and for many good reasons, not least of which it avoids the systematic bias that would result otherwise. This person verifiably meets WP:POLITICIAN. Sysoyenko is covered directly here and gets some biographical coverage here as one of the deputies forming a new parliamentary group. The latter also mentions that she's been covered in Komsomolskaya Pravda one of the three largest newspapers in the Ukraine. The article also has a side box where she features on a magazine cover, apparently not online, where she gets an article devoted to her, though as that's offline it's hard to evaluate its reliability. Incidentally, the nominator is mistaken about how the electoral system in Ukraine works, it's not a Closed list system, as they seem to believe, so people aren't elected "en masse." It's a mixed system, with some elected from single member constituencies and the rest elected from Open lists, i.e. the party gets a certain number of seats and then the most voted for candidates within the list get those seats. Sysoyenko was elected because her party received more votes than many others *and* she received more votes from the electorate than other candidates of her party. The latter is something which no member of the British or Canadian parliaments can say. Valenciano (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Valenciano: Thank you for finding those sources. I was unable to find anything significant using the various spellings of her name that I could discover, but these articles use an alternate spelling and do, indeed, provide sufficient coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 06:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:, if you look at the dates on the sources, most of them are from this week, so there's no criticism of you for making what was clearly a good faith nomination as you've clearly done WP:BEFORE. I wonder, though, if given the fact that these sources have now come to light, you'd consider withdrawing the nomination? Valenciano (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of national legislature for major nation, and thus inherently notable. Well-covered by reliable sources. -LtNOWIS (talk)
Withdrawn. Sources have appeared that meet requirements for WP:POLITICIAN. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 8 December 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. The article was speedy deleted by User:Spinningspark per CSD A7: "No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event" NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infected Rain

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

I came across this as an WP:A7 candidate, but the article asserts just enough notability to where I felt that it'd be better to run this one through AfD. I did find some stuff that gives off the impression that there are other sources (see here) and there's a strong possibility that more coverage could exist in Russian- another reason I wanted to take this to AfD. None of the sources currently on the article are really the type that can be used as WP:RS, unfortunately. If anyone can find substantial coverage in RS to show notability, I'm willing to withdraw my nom. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator indicates, what really does this one in is the poor sourcing, which basically consists of a mixture of blogs, passing mentions and pure cruft. If something substantial turns up, then by all means let's reconsider, but for now I see nothing indicating this would meet WP:BAND. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 27 November 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 18:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project management 2.0

AfDs for this article:

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

Article left over from the fad of putting 2.0 on the end of things, looking pointless and stale in 2014. Artw (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 19 November 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, czar ⨹ 07:55, 26 November 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 18:17, 3 December 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. There has been adequate participation herein, but ultimately there is no consensus for a particular action regarding the article. Discussion regarding the article's content, inclusion criteria, a potential name change, etc. can continue on its talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb laws

AfDs for this article:

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unusual laws. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the title is inherently POV, etc. What could be a "dumb" law in one instance may not be "dumb" in another. The references given in the article aren't very convincing, one (Dumblaws) is not a reliable source, while the other sources do not explicitly state that the laws they are discussing are "dumb". If only BJAODN still existed, this would have been perfect for it, but nooooo. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attention to closing admin: this AfD seems linked to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unusual_laws. Whatever the decision, I would recommend a single decision for both articles. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Copying my argument from the 2007 AFD which resulted in a "Keep") If this were an article mindlessly repeating the fake or misrepresented "dumb laws" circulated by lazy newspaper columnists or uncritical emailers, it would be a good candidate for deletion. As it is, it provides encyclopedic information to show that such laws are often nonexistent or grossly misrepresented. An example is a book claiming that a city has "an ordinance against tieing alligators to fire hydrants"[9] when the actual ordinance prohibits tieing ANIMALS to fire hydrants (a 'gator is an animal, right?). As references, there are such sources as the Snopes debunking of sorority houses being banned in some small town as brothels. The article as it exists could be renamed Dumb law hoaxes to more accurately represent it. Or it could have a section on actual dumb laws in addition to the hoaxes. There have been and are some genuinely dumb laws, like the "no snowball law" [10] [11]. If a legislature calls some laws "dumb laws" and moves to repeal them, then it is likely the laws really exist [12].(link from 2007 is dead in 2014) which could be included if 1)a printed source exists to call it a dumb law and b) a citation to that actual law is provided. The American Bar Association Journal and its counterparts in other countries sometimes include such material in a somewhat humorous but verified way. Some "dumb laws" are actually just old laws which had no sunset provision, such as actual law from my town from circa 1900 which required that an automobile be preceded by someone walking along ahead to assure that horses were not frightened.(adding:)There is no basis for demanding a common fate for this article and the other article mentioned above. Instead, merge the other article into this one and consider retitling it. Edison (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the title POV, but the whole concept is POV. Who says what is or isn't a dumb (or unusual) law? That varies from culture to culture and from time period to time period. And even if we have a source saying that the law is dumb/unusual, those sources are themselves POV. They are usually written for humor value, with little attention paid to whether the description of the law is accurate or not (or what we call "editorial oversight", the requirement for a reliable source). Just look how many of the mythical dumb laws have been reported by usually reliable sources! This article is a little better written and sourced than Unusual laws, but IMO the topic is inherently unencyclopedic and both articles should be deleted. (However, I disagree with the suggestion that the articles be treated together. They are nominated at different times so they are on different schedules, and the discussions may involve different people and different arguments which should be evaluated individually.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well at the very least the page title needs to change. "Dumb" is not only subjective but it's a particularly undescriptive pejorative that, in an encyclopedia, should probably [properly] be understood as ~"laws regarding people unable to speak". It seems like between this and unusual laws there's an opportunity for a List of unusual laws (or perhaps List of unusual laws in the United States or List of unusual city and state laws in the United States) for laws notable (via multiple reliable sources, I would presume) for being unusual, counterintuitive, anachronistic, etc. The particulars could be considered on the list talk page, but what can't happen is a synthesis of people's opinions of what is "dumb" or "stupid" to come up with an article about those "dumb" and "stupid" things. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable, at this time, to support the deletion of this article, though it may well need to be moved and/or extensively reworked (neither of which is grounds for deletion). I am inclined to think that there is probably scope for an article that includes this subject. The expressions "absurd laws" and "bad laws", for example, both produce hundreds of results in GBooks. Criticism of law is almost certainly a viable topic, since there is a substantial body of opinion that opposes the entire concept of law (both within political and religious movements and traditionally within certain societies, and covered in scholarly publications). Dumb laws doesn't fall into any of the four criteria of INDISCRIMINATE, so that policy is irrelevant, contrary to what is claimed above. James500 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is clearly notable with lots of sources using the phrase. This is not an indiscriminate list of laws, instead the article is about the subject and even explains how what is called a dumb law often is an exaggeration or an outright hoax. I wouldn't oppose another name, and the list of examples will have to be kept short. As for synthesis, we shouldn't do that, but we can report on other people's synthesis when it's WP:DUE. Sjö (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems well discussed in multiple secondary and scholarly academic sources, with potential for improvement from a Quality improvement project in the future. — Cirt (talk) 19:13, 1 December 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 18:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's always seemed obvious that non-encyclopedic content of this nature really not ought to get included in WP. What frustrating is that I don't think there is a really specific policy which enunciates that. The best I can come up with is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently POV article, and one which opens the door to indiscriminate nonsense (What's next? An article called 'Stupid People'? I'm sure I could find plenty of sourcing for that phrase). The problematic nature of the topic gets clear in the article itself, which has quite a bit of opinion and soapboxing. This could be cleaned up, but then you wouldn't really be left with much of an article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article called Stupidity, and Stupid people redirects to it. James500 (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was ready to go along and !vote delete, but then I read the article. It's not half bad, and is well-written and properly sourced. Perhaps it just needs a new title and loving care. As the lawyer asked the the hostile witness, "Isn't it true that we still incubate articles?" Bearian (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: - Agree with your characterization of "not half bad", but curious whether we have a policy that says being "half bad, and is well-written and properly sourced" is grounds for inclusion on WP? NickCT (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, of course not. I am citing WP:IAR. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of how an article on this topic could be done, see chapter 5 (titled "imperfect rules") of "How to do Things with Rules" by Twining and Miers. James500 (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tongan Crip Gang

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

There is no single gang of this name. At best there are three groups of youths (widely separated in time and place) who have used the name. None of the references support this being a single gang across the extent of time and place given. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 November 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, czar ⨹ 07:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a relatively young article and is still being improved. I think the point made in the PROD could be addressed on the article's Talk page. Try that first, or tag it to call attention to any problems with the content. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:25, 2 December 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 18:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 04:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Pinizzotto

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

WP:BLP of a non-profit organization founder and president, with heavy overtones of promotional as opposed to encyclopedic presentation. As currently constituted, this relies almost entirely on sources in which the subject is briefly quoted giving a comment about something else, and/or invalid primary sources, with not a single source in the entire article in which she's the subject (which is the kind of sourcing it takes to get an encyclopedia article.) She might potentially qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but that's not what this is. Delete — redirection to COA Ontario (the organization she leads) might also be acceptable, but that's also a really badly-written and abysmally-sourced advertisement which might also qualify for deletion.) Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Agree problems with article but there are numerous sources here, with Pinizzotto (sp) being a substantial voice in politics in Ontario, by organizing a group that represents 1+million condo owners in the most populous Canadian province. In addition, the media see her as an authority on condo real estate, such as here, they publish her views regularly in condo-related discussions in the news media, although I did not come across an article discussing her primarily as a person or player, although this article includes more information about her COA organization. Clearly the current article appears overly long, promotional, and can be trimmed substantially; if kept, I'll try to trim it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:14, 20 November 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, czar ⨹ 07:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another weak keep The refs could do with being cleaned up a bit, but then it's okay. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:07, 1 December 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 18:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem with bad reference styles and "numerous sources" is that you can't tell what weight to give the references that are there. I only had the patience to go through the first 6: #1 does not mention her #2 is a 6 minute interview about condos, not about her #3 a one sentence quote from her on an article about real estate #4 her name on a list #5 a short quote in an article not about her #6 quotes from her about a proposed law, not about her. In a brief scan of the first few pages of the "numerous sources" not one appears to be about her, and I assume that they all have short quotes. That she is quoted about her area of expertise in local real estate is not GNG, IMO. LaMona (talk) 00:59, 10 December 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. (Soft delete, minding low participation.) czar ⨹ 20:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Imperative

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

There's no reference that this actually exists as an economic concept - if it is a new one it probably belongs as a sentence in a parent article. The closet ref found was class notes at ^[1] EBY (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/notes/university-of-exeter/2012/international-management-notes/samples/international-management-strategy-formulation-and-implementation

Delete - I think there might be room for this as a neologism - there term is certainly used extensively - at Economic imperative. But this is nonsensical and at and wrong title even if it were not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 19 November 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 06:23, 26 November 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 17:54, 3 December 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. Withdrawn j⚛e decker ^talk 19:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navitaire

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

This subsidiary of Accenture should be redirected to the parent company because there is no indepth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. A WP:SPA has twice resurrected the article from a redirect and once removed a PROD. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I agree that the current version of the Navitaire article is not well-supported by sources and understand why you've nominated it for deletion, I'm actually working right now on a much improved draft for the article. The draft cites around 28 independent sources. Basic information about the company is cited to Bloomberg and to this CAPA profile. This industry article goes in depth about airline passenger service systems, including Navitaire, which the article makes clear is a major player in its market. Other sources include this article on Navitaire's capabilities, this one and this one on its software, New Skies, and this article noting Navitaire's win at the Budgies World Low Cost Airlines Awards. As I am working on this on behalf of Accenture, I won't make any edits to the live article. Instead, I was planning on presenting my new draft for editors to review and take live if it looks ok in the next few weeks. I'd like to suggest waiting on a deletion decision until I've been able to finish and propose my new draft. That way editors can see what they think based on a more robustly written and sourced version. Would that be possible? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to get my draft finished up and given the go-ahead by the folks at Navitaire today, so here's the link to the draft in my user space: User:16912_Rhiannon/Navitaire Does this draft work to show the article can be retained? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 19 November 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 06:19, 26 November 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 17:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination in favour of User:16912 Rhiannon/Navitaire. I've tweaked the lede somewhat. Closer please replace old article with new draft. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:18, 11 December 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. czar ⨹ 20:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Chen (politician)

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

Part-term city councilman who appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN; all the coverage I can find is either very local to his small city (Alameda, California, population about 75K) or a passing mention. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't extend a presumption of notability to city councillors unless the city is an internationally prominent global city on the order of New York City or London, so he doesn't pass WP:NPOL on that basis. In theory, he could potentially still qualify for a really well-sourced and substantive article on WP:GNG grounds — but nothing written or sourced here actually demonstrates any real reason why he should be considered more notable than most other city councillors, so I'm not seeing a credible GNG claim either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 2 December 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 17:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - besides being not so notable, this page might become little more than an attack BLP. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. At least 3 of the references do not support notability (League of women voters pamphlet, 1&5; city charter, #2). The remainder are local papers, one a freebie. LaMona (talk) 01:04, 10 December 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 List of GMA Network stations. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DXNS-TV

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

Are relay stations notable? (Pinging Neutralhomer.) This article is unsourced and I see no reason to accept this as notable; an AfD may settle the matter for the many similar articles. A Google search produces nothing at all (well, their Facebook page...). Drmies (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 November 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GMA Network stations I'm not our friend NH but the station barely originates any of its own programming, so a RD to the List of is appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 04:20, 26 November 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 17:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are few or no articles that might prove its existence. Theenjay36 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 04:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Malone

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

Do not believe the accomplishments of the subject of this BLP meet the requirements of MUSICBIO and the available coverage does not meet GNG. J04n(talk page) 23:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 23:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 23:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 19 November 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:39, 26 November 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 17:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Harsh (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I wasn't sure about this one at first, since there is some coverage of him in RSs, [13] [14] [15] [16], but some of it is just in passing. However, I think the first two sources I linked to are enough to pass WP:GNG. Everymorning talk to me 18:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@J04n and Harsh 2580, any thoughts on these new sources? czar ⨹ 19:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the first is a legit review but the other 3 don't come close to establishing notability. Not convinced this is a notable musician based on a single review of one of his releases. J04n(talk page) 00:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it passing GNG. All of these above sources are reliable, but the last two aren't exclusively written about the subject and aren't significant and the second one is trivial. Harsh (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - other sources are Music News, Hamilton Spectator, STV Aberdeen, Shetland Times, Lancashire Telegraph. Now, to be fair, most of those are just mentions that he's played with artists, and indeed he seems to be primarily notable as a sidesman. Since the phrase "Bob Malone" is a valid one to type in the search box, he's good for at least a redirect somewhere. But his credits on AllMusic verify a number of guest appearances for notable musicians including John Fogerty and Barbara Kessler. Since I can't work out where he should redirect to, and I'm not sure there is a definitive answer, I have to default to "keep". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 12 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View (newspaper)

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

NN local monthly/online newspaper, fails WP:ORG and the GNG. The only sources listed other than the subject's itself mention the subject only in passing. A Google Newspaper search for "Point of View" + its home city + the publisher's surname (to weed out false hits) is completely empty. The handful of Google News hits mention the subject only in passing (and all from a single source, the local metropolitan daily, which fails WP:SIGCOV), in reference to a quote from one or the other of the paper's publishers, a husband-and-wife team of local attorneys; as the relevant guidelines explicitly state, of course, a quote from someone associated with a subject cannot be used to sustain notability OF the subject.

Expired prod somehow left undeleted several days after expiration, and *then* prod removed with the edit summary "Article never had a vote of deletion." Ravenswing 03:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 27 November 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 17:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No evidence of notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I agree that there is little evidence of notability. I looked at the article for African-American newspapers hoping that this could be a merge/redirect, but that article only has a simple list of names. So an editor is kind of boxed-in here, with the only options being a separate WP article or just a name in a list. However, there is little here that one cannot get from the website of the newspaper. I wish there were some intermediate option. LaMona (talk) 01:13, 10 December 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. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Yin

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

The sourcing is not bad, and maybe notability requirements are met. But I'm nominating this to get a second opinion from other Wikipedians about a BLP article about a minor that was evidently created by a single-purpose editor who very likely has a conflict of interest in creating this article. I would worry less about this if the article subject were already an adult. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She meets notability guidelines, the article is fairly well sourced and there is no obviously promotional tone or POV editing. The fact that the article was created by a single purpose account with a COI is not a reason to delete it. I don't think there is anything to worry about here in regards to BLP or the fact that she is a child, especially considering there is nothing negative or controversial included. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The reference style here hides the source of the references, and most are not RS. Six are Youtube or blogs; 2 are art advertising sites; 3 are local announcements of events; the remainder appear to be promotional. What I don't find is anything from the art world - that is, no major museums or galleries. These two sisters are highly promoted, but may be just a flash in the pan. LaMona (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real strong WP:RS for this person. --Artene50 (talk) 01:09, 24 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some of the sources are unreliable, but between the reliable sources currently cited and what I'm seeing with even a cursory search, there's sufficient coverage to pass WP:BIO. She's been interviewed on Chinese television multiple times, it appears, and featured in other seemingly reliable video sources like THNKR. For print sources, between what is cited and reliable (China Daily, CNTV, a couple local papers, a magazine profile..) and the uncited sources I found in a matter of a couple minutes (Daily Beast, Art Business News 1 2 (via HighBeam), PsychCentral/The Creative Mind, Visual News -- in decreasing order of reliability, I suppose), it appears to me that sufficient sources exist to justify inclusion on WP:BIO grounds. That's further strengthened by the fact that several sources appear to be Chinese and thus behind a language barrier. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 27 November 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 17:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Per LaMona. Poor sourcing. May be a case of Too Soon. NickCT (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rhododendrites I looked up "Art Business News" (I don't have access to Highbeam) and it is a purely marketing publication, per its own promotion: "Provides industry news, marketing matters and emerging trends that drive sales for art publishers, galleries, solo artists and art-related business." I would therefore not consider that a RS. Daily Beast, PsychCentral and VisualNews all are what I think of as "collective blogs". So I still think we haven't uncovered a truly reliable, third-part source. LaMona (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Despite the filibustering from other editors saying page was evidently created by a single-purpose editor who very likely has a conflict of interest, i.e. Zoe's mom? in creating this article. I don't buy it. I would worry less about this if the article subject were she were older and in the adult movie industry. Please keep for now --Chan12345 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, SPA and COI aren't my concern. Could you please address the issue of reliable sources that I brought up above? LaMona (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reliable sources found by Rhododendrites. The Daily Beast has editorial oversight; its article provides substantial coverage of the subject. This Chinese-language article from Sina Corp and this Chinese-language article from China News Service also discuss the subject (she is referenced by her Chinese name 尹亮景).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zoe Yin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 19:51, 16 December 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 Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia. czar ⨹ 06:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Peel

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

This World War I pilot didn't live long enough to become notable. He has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science, but that's just as short as this article. Could be redirected to Royal Flying Doctor Service. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia I searched, but could find very little.ShulMaven (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I found quite a few mentions with this search [17], including this [18] which provides some more biographical information. Mainly the hits seem to be in relation to the inspiration he provided for esablishing the RFDSA, though, and probably don't consistute signficant coverage. As such, a redirect to RFDSA probably makes the most sense (it seems a viable search term at least). If significant coverage can be established, though, I would have no dramas with the article being recreated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:17, 28 November 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 17:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per AustralianRupert, makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 6 December 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 transwiki. czar ⨹ 06:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egersis

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

Article goes into the definition and origin of a word. This is better left to Wiktionary. Bgwhite (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move per nom - Should be added to Wiktionary. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:28, 26 November 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 17:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While in theory, such a concept could be an article, I'd go along with a tranwikification. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 4 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Dutt

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Harsh (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Subject meets Wikipedia general notability guideline. They have full-page coverage in multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources such as, [19] The Statesman, [20] The Hindu, [21] Deccan Herald, [22] Indian Express, [23] The Pioneer, [24] The Hindu, etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by Anupmehra show that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Totally legit. And I love the name. --Chan12345 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HeartShare Human Services of New York

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

Queried speedy delete :: I have received a message User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Deletion of HeartShare Human Services of New York page which claims that Heartshare has existed since 1914 and is large and significant. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:23, 3 December 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 December 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If it is large and significant, where is the coverage? Why is the only reference to their own web page? I googled them, and in the first three pages found only one example of press coverage, a Daily News article entitled "Brooklyn nonprofit charged with negligence in alleged attack of man with Down syndrome: Lawsuit." I can see why they didn't want to base the article on this particular reference, but shouldn't there be more? ubiquity (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need something other than the organization's web site to back up any claims to notability. LaMona (talk) 01:18, 10 December 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. I am taking the action as an ordinary editor (and explicitly not as admin or closer) to redirect this article to 2014 Ferguson unrest. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Up United

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

Non notable WP:ORG. Has passing mentions in references as part of the larger notable protests, but no sources discussing the organization itself in any detail. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Newsweek, The Atlantic, The Guardian and Wash. Post coverage is all passing; three of these simply mention it to identify the person being quoted. — Brianhe (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article clearly meets WP:GNG criteria and WP:ORG. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's just not notable. Agree with nom and Brianhe. Per WP:ORG "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Hmlarson says the article just needs expansion. Well, there's nothing really to expand. It doesn't look like they've done anything beyond making some noise and putting up a hollow (but pretty) web site. Maybe one day they will become notable... but not today. – JBarta (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this... when I google "hands up", handsupunited.org is the first hit. I suppose that's something. Not a lot... but something.... – JBarta (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google News yields 435 results including these articles from WSJ,Fox News Democracy Now The New York Times, Washington Post, and hundreds more. Hmlarson (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in passing, usually along with other "organizations" that may or may not be notable. Will they still get even incidental mentioning when reporters looking for any story leave Fergusen? Probably not. – JBarta (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 Ferguson unrest. Thus far at least, they're only involved in these particular events and mentioned in passing in relation to them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Hmlarson (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ferguson October, part of a larger event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Ferguson October is itself up for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to 2014 Ferguson unrest. This is part of a larger series of events. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but not all of the unrest is happening in Ferguson anymore. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG, and WP:ORGDEPTH which states that "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." The following sources qualify under this criteria (they are not trivial or incidental): CBS News, Huffington Post, Fox News, Tech Cocktail, USA Today, and Jewish Daily Forward.- Mr X 02:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferguson October, a similar article also up for deletion. – JBarta (talk) 21:42, 7 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blade God

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

This is an autobiography with just one reference, but without significant coverage. The person is not even referred by this name in the source. I tried to find some sources, but found nothing. Maybe that is because there are many other persons named "Nicky Adams" and some other things names "Blade God". Vanjagenije (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding much and what I am finding isn't exactly the type of stuff that would fly per BLP, mostly stuff that can be charitably described as poking fun at him. Unless holding an X Games title is particularly noteworthy or there's a ton of coverage off Wikipedia that can be verified, I'm leaning towards a delete in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a mention in a kid's book, but I want to note that nobody seems to be calling him "Blade God" except for himself... and the people that make fun of him online. If by some chance this is kept (which looks unlikely) I'd suggest moving it to the guy's real name and deleting the Blade God redirect since I can't see where it's a prevalent nickname in the slightest. Other than that I see some evidence of interviews here, but I don't know how reliable Be-Mag.com really is as far as Wikipedia's purposes go. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I do see some coverage here, here, and here, two of which show that there was an in-depth interview and a feature about him back when he won the gold medal. This seems to be pretty much all I can find, so I'm guessing that if there was more coverage then it's off the Internet. It's more than I was expecting, but so far it's still falling short and I'm still somewhat uncertain if X-Game medals can be the type of award that would merit a keep on that basis alone. It'd certainly count towards notability, but would it give absolute notability? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate sources, but all three of them are only giving him passing mention. It think it would be a stretch to establish notability on those alone. NickCT (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... that's kind of what I was thinking. The only thing I know for certain is that the nickname is only used by the guy himself and doesn't need to be in the article. I'm going to post my decision below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing significant coverage. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was kind of hemming and hawing over this, but here's what I decided on personally: there isn't a lot out there about this guy. There are some posts about his X-Games participation, but not very much. It may be due to the Internet, it may not be. There was a very brief flurry of coverage... and then that was it. Now when it comes to his later activities and more importantly his new moniker, I haven't found any reliable sources about the guy. From what I can see, this is a name that Adams came up with one day and tried to make stick. However instead of people finding it cool, mostly what I found was a huge heaping of derision where people were mocking the name, talking about how "weird" the guy was, making jokes about his mental stability, and so on. I was trying not to outright acknowledge this sort of thing, but that's all I could really find in relation to the term "Blade God". The only reason I'm linking to half of that stuff is because I want to emphasize that there should be nothing here under the name Blade God. If there was an article that listed the winners of the various X-Games I'd suggest a redirect to that article. As it stands he's already mentioned at Skiboarding#The_Boom and that's really the most I can see him warranting at this point in time unless someone can bring up a huge amount of sourcing to show otherwise. However even if this does happen, I can honestly say that an article about Nicky Adams should not exist under the name Blade God and because it isn't a common nickname for him in reliable sources, it shouldn't be in the article if somehow this is kept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence of notability. Also, if the article is kept, it should be renamed to Nicky Adams. none of the references mentions the name "Blade God". The king of the sun (talk) 13:47, 5 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AppMaster

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

Non-notable product from company of the same ilk. The provided sources are bogus and don't even mention the company or this product. Only thing remotely notable is a blog post from the developers of Lookout detailing its flaws[25](includes additional links). In this diff [26], to a seperate but related article, the author includes a Tumblr URL as source but, this particular URL is only exposed to the blog owner; while subdomains are instead used on Tumblr for public facing content (eg staff.tumblr.com, internetarchive.tumblr.com etc). -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like advertising. NickCT (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly promotional. Deb (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearing promotional. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Advertisement.Pgold009 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very promotional. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional and not notable. Harsh (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure Promotional article.Lakun.patra (talk) 05:15, 4 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YAY messenger

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

It's a phone/tablet app that's only just been released on November 29, 2014 - I see no indication of notability (and I don't see any CSD:A7 categories appropriate to apps) Squinge (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (I see it's been speedy-deleted once already as G11 promotion). Squinge (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with OP. When I added the maintenance tags to the article it sounded like somebody trying to advertise a product they're selling. It lacks notability criteria, and doesn't have any sources at the very least. Looks nothing more than a promotional piece. Nath1991 (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant advertising and unreferenced. Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unsourced promotion, no indication of significance. Trivialist (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - page has been moved to YAY Messenger (capitalized). ansh666 08:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of the sources now added...
- The three External links (other than the official web site) are three sources of the same press release which starts "Asian-origin mobile applications LINE, YAY and WeChat are posing challenges to technology giants Apple, Facebook, Google and other telecoms carriers, cutting into their market shares, according to a Singapore -based firm" - that's by Clone Algo, the app's designer.
- ~~Ref 1 is just the app at the Google app store.~~
- Ref 1 is another press release, by the company that funded its development this time. Squinge (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC) (Updated Squinge (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Too soon, fails WP:NSOFT. The page was first created by ShikhaM123, deleted and then recreated by ShikhaPotter (maybe a sock). --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:29, 5 December 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 Raj Chakraborty. czar ⨹ 19:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mafia (2014 film)

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

The only source in this article is a page from 2013. I have found some other equally dubious sources from 2014, but nothing that indicates the film has been made or has even started filming. It seems like it's still just an idea in the director's head. I'm not good at searching for Indian sources, so it's certainly possible I'm missing something. Full disclosure: I just removed a lot of the material that isn't sourced by the text and poster in the external link (tagged since January of this year). Bbb23 (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect While not unsourcable,[27][28][29] we can redirect for now to Raj Chakraborty where his unreleased project can be spoken of. It might be completed, but being unreleased and not having more coverage it currently fails WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -per above. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raj Chakraborty per Schmidt Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:56, 10 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tokyo

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable low-traffic blog; media references are minor and not ongoing; does not satisfy notability requirements Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable blog, References only mention the subject in passing. --DAJF (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got a little publicity, but not WP notable. LaMona (talk) 01:27, 10 December 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. czar ⨹ 19:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Thomas M.

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

Borderline A7 speedy. The awards are from the company he works or worked for (MPC). He hasn't received significant attention for his work, he is listed in IMDb-style crew lists for these movies but nothing more. Fram (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unref blp, couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -No sign of significance. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film credits are not enough. BTW I didn't know what matchmove meant. It means this: What is Matchmoving? -- matching the movement of a real camera in virtual 3D geometry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margin1522 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9 December 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. The article has been merged to Dehydron. It may discussed on the relevant article's talk page whether the merge it appropriate or not and at WP:RFD if the redirect is appropriate or not. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epistructural tension

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

Vanity article started by a known sock puppet of Ariel Fernandez, who introduced this concept. At least one of the secondary links establishing importance (ref. 3) is broken; the other is merely a perspective on the newly published Fernandez article and does not include the term "epistructural tension" at all. Content overlaps significantly with dehydron and if not deleted outright, it should likely just be merged in there as a subsection. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Bueller 007 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Let's just merge this into dehydron - I don't think we need to go through a whole AfD. Want to withdraw this and let's just do that? Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I'm fine with that. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, please close this discussion, and I will go ahead and do the merge. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a non-admin, I do not know how to do this. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously non-notable self-promotion. I wouldn't bother taking the time to merge. Delete with prejudice. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 3 December 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. czar ⨹ 04:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Written Images

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

Unsourced (except an IMDb page, which isn't sourcing) article about a film, slated for release in 2016, that has yet to even begin production. ~~and in fact even its crowdfunding campaign still isn't fully funded as of today (raising my sneaking suspicion that this was really created to help advertise it.~~ No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when reliable source coverage about the film actually exists, but right now is WP:TOOSOON. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most recent Kickstarter campaign ended before this article was created (it ended on November 6th), so I don't think that this was a case of someone creating an article to advertise a crowdsourcing campaign. However at the same time, this as-of-yet uncreated film is still not notable enough to merit an article. All I can find is an article in the Columbia Chronicle, but that's not enough to really show notability. At best this is just WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article. On a side note I'd like to recommend to User:Thx14sdx24 (if he is the director) that he may want to look into IndieGoGo or one of the other crowdsourcing campaigns that would allow you to keep any money that is donated, whereas Kickstarter will only give you the funds if your goal is reached. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The really weird thing is that when I looked at the Kickstarter page less than two minutes before I filled out the nomination, it was displaying as an open campaign that one could still donate to, not as a failed or closed one. Possibly a technical snafu on their part, I suppose. Regardless, I'll strike that part of my rationale. Bearcat (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF as they haven't stated filming yet. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being far TOO SOON for an article. Allow recreation or undeletion only after it begins filming and gains the requisite coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:23, 5 December 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 - Nom's withdrawn but it seems he wants it Merged, Since it seems to be one big clusterfuck I'm closing as Keep but I have no issues if anyone wants to Merge or Redirect themselves (providing afds are changed, Cheers (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone's already merged it - Would've helped if this was also closed with it.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping technology

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

Vanity article started by a known sock puppet of Ariel Fernandez, who "pioneered" this technology. As noted in the talk page of the article, the notability of the subject matter has not been established by its own right. Content overlaps significantly with dehydron and if not deleted outright, it should likely just be merged in there as a subsection. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Bueller 007 (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just merge this into dehydron - I don't think we need to go through a whole AfD. Want to withdraw this and let's just do that? Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I'm fine with that. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, then would you close this one? I will go ahead and do the merge/redirect. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a non-admin, I do not know how to do this. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously non-notable self-promotion. I wouldn't bother taking the time to merge. Delete with prejudice. NickCT (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note a redirect is not appropriate here given that the term "wrapping technology" is much more likely to refer to other topics, rather than the topic of this article. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has already been merged to Dehydron making it a redirect, 3 days ago. I see, no opposition on there. Should be closed as Nomination Withdrawn or simply Keep per SNOW?. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: - It's still a delete. It's actually become a double redirect. The merge really shouldn't have been done till this discussion was concluded. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NickCT -I was just wondering, merge has been performed leaving subject a redirect to target, and no one appeared on there to challenge the merge. If you believe the merge is not appropriate, you should revert them and ask them to discuss first the merge on target article's talk page or here. I remember a similar case, which I did close recently, you said "promotional and have not time to perform merge", well other people had time to fix and they did, therefore I closed that one. In present case, I didn't because you also said, 'a redirect will not be appropriate', then again I wonder why don't you challenge the merge? Tell them why a merge/redirect is inappropriate in present case. I absolutely have zero idea about the subjects involved, therefore I may not able to suggest a view. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: - Thanks for your comments! My rationale for saying it's inappropriate is pretty simply really. If you simply google "wrapping technology" you will see that it very rarely refers to the subject of the redirect. If the term "wrapping technology" is never used to refer to the subject in question then "wrapping technology" should redirect to article in question.

I didn't challenge the merge because the editor who preformed the merge is a little aggressive and generally starts shouting at reverts. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's weird. You should really not fear them. I've strickenthrough my one comment that may create confusion that merge is unchallenged. It may be a little hard to have converse with some people, but when there's no way out, you must do. Seems like, they are enjoying performing bold-merges. That's really not what WP:MERGETEXT says. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:10, 8 December 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 List of Degrassi characters. Merge rather than redirect so the list can be structured à la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. czar ⨹ 15:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Fernandez

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

Non notable character and article is unreferenced. Tagged for no references since Feb 08, for in universe writing since Oct 09, and for original research since Sept 07. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:24, 17 November 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 November 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:V. This should have been deleted a long time ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. This is a major character featured in two prominent series. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a criterion that gets a character into Wikipedia as an article topic — if reliable source coverage isn't present to properly demonstrate real world context for why the character is notable, then they get included in a merged character list rather than standing alone as an independent article. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 27 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No RS coverage to demonstrate any real-world notability — all this contains is an in-universe biography of her, more suited for a Degrassi fansite than an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect per the other recent discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Degrassi characters, which should be restructured to include more information, something like List of Left Behind characters. There is RS coverage of this character, but it is just one sentence in the Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 2nd Ed, and an unknown amount of coverage in the Reviewing Journal of Canadian Materials for Young People, the first edition of the Encyclopedia of Television Shows, and Canadian Children's Books (these are only available in snippet view so I don't know how extensive the coverage is. I don't think there's enough on these characters for a standalone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:19, 1 December 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, Deadbeef 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Degrassi characters as per above no evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 3 December 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 List of Degrassi characters. Merge rather than redirect so the list can be structured à la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. czar ⨹ 15:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Farrell

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

Non notable character and article is unreferenced. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The fact that the article needs improvement is not a criteria for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that it doesn't properly demonstrate or source any notability in the first place is a criterion for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 27 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No RS coverage to demonstrate any real-world notability — all this contains is an in-universe biography of her, more suited for a Degrassi fansite than an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect per the other recent discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Degrassi characters, which should be restructured to include more information, something like List of Left Behind characters. Hardly any RS coverage of this character. this book on abortion is the best I could find. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:36, 1 December 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, Deadbeef 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Degrassi characters as per above no evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 3 December 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 List of Degrassi characters. Merge rather than redirect so the list can be structured à la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. czar ⨹ 15:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Mead

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

Non notable character and article has IMDB references with tons of plot detail. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The fact that the article needs improvement is not a criteria for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that it doesn't properly demonstrate or source any notability in the first place is a criterion for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 27 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No RS coverage to demonstrate any real-world notability — all this contains is an in-universe biography of her, more suited for a Degrassi fansite than an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect per the other recent discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Degrassi characters, I couldn't find enough RS coverage to merit a standalone article. See Google books results. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:50, 1 December 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, Deadbeef 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Degrassi characters as per above no evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 3 December 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 List of Degrassi characters. Merge rather than redirect so the list can be structured à la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. czar ⨹ 14:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Wheeler

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

Non notable character and article is unreferenced. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a non-notable character as the nominator suggests. It's a major character in a culturally-significant program. See the following: 1, 2, 3, [30], 4, 5. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:43, 22 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Degrassi characters, which should be restructured. The sources provided by User:Tchaliburton are mostly about the actor, who already has his own article. I couldn't find enough information on the character to merit a standalone article, but inclusion as part of a list makes sense. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and Cerebellum. This is just an unreferenced in-universe bio of him, written entirely in the style of a Degrassi fansite and containing no real world context to properly demonstrate his suitability as a standalone topic in an encyclopedia. Tchaliburton's sources, further, are not about this character in his own right, but about the actor who played him — so they're legitimate sourcing for our article on Neil Hope, absolutely, but they do not transfer notability onto the character if the character himself isn't their subject. All any of them can actually add to this article is sourcing for the introduction — they do not add any contextual value to the body of the article, or demonstrate any reason why the character would warrant a standalone article instead of inclusion in a character list. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 1 December 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, Deadbeef 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Degrassi characters as per above no evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 3 December 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 List of Degrassi characters. Merge rather than redirect so the list can be structured à la List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. czar ⨹ 15:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Kaye

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

Non notable character and article has only one reference. Does not meet GNG. Also per recent AfDs for similar characters in the series: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron all which were closed as delete/redirect. Gloss 18:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The fact that the article needs improvement is not a criteria for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that it doesn't properly demonstrate or source any notability in the first place is a criterion for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 27 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An in-world bio with no indication of real-world significance or notability. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No RS coverage to demonstrate any real-world notability — all this contains is an in-universe biography of her, more suited for a Degrassi fansite than an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect per the other recent discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Degrassi characters, which should be restructured to include more information, something like List of Left Behind characters. There are a few google books results for this character, but not enough for a standalone article. Still merits inclusion in a list though.--Cerebellum (talk) 08:42, 1 December 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, Deadbeef 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Degrassi characters as per above no evidence of notability to warrant its own article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:00, 3 December 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. czar ⨹ 15:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tejaswi S. Naik

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

He’s a junior level apparatchik of the state of Madhya Pradesh in India and does not have enough references to warrant an article on him. Fails WP:GNG. Also most of the other references are only links to orders allocating his cadre or posting which every officer will have. Uncletomwood (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Uncletomwood (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, possible hoax--Mevagiss (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being he a junior level prentice does not questions notability of Indian Administrative servants, the membership of the elite service of the Indian union itself confers them a badge of extra ordinary notability. In India all the major and minor policies are executed with the unanimous consensus of them. Per me does not being a politician but providing a certificate of victory to them only is sufficient to keep us from asking their executiveness. Although i have not gone through to create articles space for all of them, this subject has earned a fame in between state and central bureaucracy and political galleries in a very short span of time, would not wonder if some one else creates it some day after this discussion ends at its deletion. Thanks. Regards.доктор прагматик 10:58, 23 November 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 10:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinions doctor pragmatik but they don't change the fact that this article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:POLITICIAN standards.--Mevagiss (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In general we don't have articles on career bureaucrats, even the most senior ones. He would have to be notable for another reason. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 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, Deadbeef 07:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually we do usually have articles on the most senior career bureaucrats. But not on those at his level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 3 December 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 Miss World Málaga. czar ⨹ 15:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Mesa

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

There are a handful of references provided, but none of them give significant coverage as intended in the guidelines for inlcusion - apart from the non-independent missworldspain website. This nomination was requested by a person claiming to be the subject who asked for this article to be deleted. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Miss World Málaga . per WP:BLP1E. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss World Malaga. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per request from subject - I believe if a subject who is marginally or not especially notable requests their article removed, we have to respect this - then recreate page as a redirect to Miss World Malaga as above. Mabalu (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Mabalu: subject request. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:27, 2 December 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, Deadbeef 07:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Deadbeef, Mabalu, and Martijn Hoekstra: - Where is the subject's request? NickCT (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was filed at the helpdesk. 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect - Virtually 0 coverage in English language sources. NickCT (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see Miss World Málaga has been held since 2013, so it's not very old is it? Málaga is a state of Spain so Miss Málaga would be a regional rather than a national title. Very dubious notability in itself, and a standalone winner with no other reasons for notability wouldn't be eligible for an article simply for being Miss Málaga. If she went on to be Miss Spain, yes, but Miss Málaga? Hmm. Nah. Mabalu (talk) 11:21, 9 December 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. Consensus is to blow it up. czar ⨹ 03:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right to a family

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

Procedural nomination. I'm listing this for AFD because it was prodded two days ago by User:MelanieN and then endorsed by User:Bearian (no relation), but then an editor with no prior edit history removed the prod tags without actually adding any real substance to the article to resolve the issues. MelanieN's original prod rationale was "Basically no content. Article has no references and consists of a single POV sentence. I can't think of any likely target for a redirect", at a time when the article looked like this; Bearian's supporting endorsement was "This concept exists, however, it's not widely recognized. I'm something of an expert on LGBT rights, but I'm aware of only a single scholarly article on the topic. See WP:TOOSOON and WP:OR." The deprodder added a bunch of {{main}} links of varying relevance to the article (incest?), but almost nothing in the way of actual substance.

Indeed it might be possible to write and reliably source a genuinely substantive article about this, so I'm certainly willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can actually figure out how to get there from here — but right now, this isn't an actual article about anything at all, let alone an article about any actual recognized human right. Rather, it's just a contextless and unsourced and extremely synthesized list of links to other articles that may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with the actual topic, and we should probably nuke and pave it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe I found the article Bearian is referencing; I agree that this seems to be the only one that uses the name of the subject in reference to it. Searching possible search terms reveals plenty of uses of the phrase 'right to a family', however pretty much all of them use it as a concept and not as a topic; that is, they don't comment on the right to a family, but simply assert it. Looking at the possible sources, I just can't see enough there to make an article out of, even a stub. I agree with the prod nom and endorser's assessments: WP:OR and WP:TOOSOON, with a touch of WP:MADEUP. Delete, without prejudice for recreation when more substantial sources exist. Deadbeef 07:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT per nom, unless revamp massively. For future editors' reference: Human Rights Education Associates article. Also related is Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That earlier this week an illegal immigrant threatened to torch his family was allowed to stay in the UK by argument of right to family might be relevant as an example case, but WP:NOTNEWS may also apply against that. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I stand by my prior comments. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Me too. Thanks to Bearcat for moving this forward. MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NAVER news search DAUM news search

Right to a family(가족구성권) is important LGBT issue in South Korea. There are about 700 references.

Also, there are many English language reference about 'right to marry' and 'right to found a family'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.228.78.103 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged right up front that the possibility existed of writing a real article about this topic. But this article, as currently written, is one of the worst things I've seen in over a decade of contributing to Wikipedia, and thus even if we do want an article about this we still need to delete this version first — we're better off starting over from scratch than we would be trying to build on this version of an article about it. And incidentally, to the extent that an article about this might be possible, it's not a uniquely LGBT issue — it absolutely touches on stuff like same-sex marriage and parenting rights, but it's a universal issue that applies to all people regardless of sexuality. Bearcat (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 4 December 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. czar ⨹ 03:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Carr

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

Tagged for notability since 2013. Can't find sources for notability that aren't SPS or databases (fictiondb, etc). Hustlecat ^{do it!} 06:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not find multiple in-depth impartial secondary sources about her as a person, as an author, or reviews of her books.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:28, 8 December 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 List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks in lieu of deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Collier

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

Former minor leaguer who didn't do much while there, fails ATHLETE and GNG. Wizardman 05:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks. Likely search term. Player not notable for his own article. Spanneraol (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see it as such a likely search term. Definitely not a keep, because he lacks coverage. He's from LA, but only has a brief mention or two in the LA Times. He was a Philly prospect, but has only occasional updates as "minor league reports" from Philly.com. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG if you dig deep. [31][32][33][34][35] Possibly [36] Considering his first round status, i'm going keep.--Yankees10 18:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of that is routine coverage that most minor leaguers who were a first rounder gets, in this case its a bit more because most of these sources you linked are human interest stories from the local newspaper because he survived open heart surgery a few years before getting drafted. The rest of these sources are typical minor league reports that every former top prospect gets. Of course a first rounder who survived open heart surgery will get him coverage by the media, but I don't see enough on his baseball playing career thus I don't see that as "substantial coverage" for meeting WP:GNG. Secret ^account 21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet we've kept numerous articles the past month or so with the same exact coverage. I mean damn, it would be nice if there was at least some consistency here. At least this guy was a first round draft pick.--Yankees10 23:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't around most of these AFDs to evaluate the coverage. If the coverage is the same or worse than this one (trivial, human interest sources), and was closed as no-consensus, we can renominate them for deletion where I would likely present a deletion argument. Being a first round pick is no exception to GNG. Secret ^account 23:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most of the articles shown are not trivial or human interest stories. They are substantive articles about the development of his career. Rlendog (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much coverage outside of him surviving open-heart surgery and being drafted in the first round, which makes it human interest/WP:ROUTINE and still fails WP:GNG. Being a first rounder, you get some coverage automatically, and surviving open heart surgery is very common. Secret ^account 21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Being drafted in the 1st round is not trivial. Substantive coverage of his being drafted is legitimate part of his noatbility to the extent that multiple reliable sources found it important enough to cover. And much of the coverage of Collier is about his minor league career beyond being drafted, which is more than most minor leaguers get. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable minor league baseball player per Secret's comments above. Does not satisfy either the specific notability guideline for baseball players per WP:NBASEBALL nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of the sources linked above, three articles appear to have identical text. In my opinion, the subject does not pass GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I was in somewhat of a rush when trying to find those so thanks for pointing that out.--Yankees10 17:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though some of Yankees10's sources are duplicates, there are enough unique, substantive articles from multiple sources to pass WP:GNG. Plus there is the substantial article by Brookover in the article itself, which has nothing to do with being a first round draft pick or surviving heart surgery (although even without that, if all first round picks who survived heart surgery have had as much coverage as Collier, then they are all notable as well). Rlendog (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played above AA level and I don't think there's enough to show he meets GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yankees10 provided several sources:
1. http://www.thereporteronline.com/article/RO/20080609/TMP01/306099995 – titled "Phillies draft pick had heart surgery", the article was published by The Reporter in June 2008.
2. http://www2.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=466013 – titled "Collier's long road to Reading", the article was published by the Reading Eagle in April 2013.
3. http://articles.philly.com/2013-05-29/sports/39582400_1_arizona-fall-league-good-things-locker – titled Collier taking it step by step", the article was published by the Philadelphia Daily News in May 2013.
4. http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/14FC716AF3A86168/0D0CB57AB53DF815 – published in August 2014 by The Intelligencer, the article's first sentence is "Zach Collier truly can appreciate the month of August with good reason."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zach Collier to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several proponents of deletion note that the subject fails WP:ATHLETE or WP:NBASEBALL, both of which redirect to Wikipedia:Notability (sports).
Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines says:
Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.
Because the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, this article should be kept.
Cunard (talk) 20:13, 16 December 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 Edison Township Public Schools. Nothing sourced to merge. czar ⨹ 03:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams Middle School (Edison, New Jersey)

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

This article covers a middle school that is not in any case notable (see WP:GNG), has no references, and is filled to the brim with grammar, spelling, and writing convention mishaps. The article's strange wording makes it appear as if the article was written by a student from the school. Standard procedure on Wikipedia mandates that individual school pages are redirected to the school district's website, and thus the page should redirect to Edison Township Public Schools. The unverifiable and at times irrelevant content within the article simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. EmperorNapoléonI (talk) 03:49, 3 December 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 December 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar, fluff, etc. are not valid reasons for deletion. That said, I am curious as to why MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs) accepted this at AfC wiothout any references whatsoever. This is not to say it is impossible the school is notable, but at current there is no evidence of it. If notability is not establish merging (not simply redirecting) to the district page is the correct outcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page doesn't attempt to explain why this particular middle school is notable. From reading the article it's not apparent - I should also note that the creator of this article (RainWizard29422 (talk · contribs)) has quite the history of trying to create pages for schools in his/her area. Perhaps he/she can attempt to explain why this school is more notable than all of the rest of the schools in the world that don't have Wikipedia entries. EmperorNapoléonI (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Edison Township Public Schools The article has a lot of stuff, but there's nothing there in terms of references, let alone a credible claim of notability of any kind. A redirect to Edison Township Public Schools would keep the link, and the little worth merging can be added into the district article. Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edison Township Public Schools per longstanding tradition in handling elementary and middle schools expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and demonstrated by around 1700 articles in the "redirected from schools" category. Jacona (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; doesn't appear to be a notable school, and as is the norm, it should be redirected to its respective school district. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:44, 5 December 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, at this point no reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mindex

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

No indication of notability. Host ager 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of notability. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 3 December 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. czar ⨹ 04:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrranosaurus' running speed estimation using froude number

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

This is written as an essay and duplicates content at Tyrannosaurus. If there's anything new here it can be merged into the main article. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, Even redirecting seems pointless imho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really see where there's anything here that could be merged into the main article, as the whole debate over the T-rex running speed seems to be fairly well covered at Tyrannosaurus#Locomotion. This entire article is pretty much just a mishmash of WP:OR and I don't see where adding any of this wouldn't end up placing WP:UNDUE weight upon this particular method of calculating T-rex speed. I'd actually say that this could probably be deleted as a recently created article that doesn't expand on the pre-existing article/section for this topic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Others have said above that redirecting or merging is pointless. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fairly obvious (as above), to pile on. Also noting that Tokyogirl has tagged the article per A10. ansh666 09:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOR, WP:NOTESSAY. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - WP:NOTESSAY is right. Sorta funny piece though... NickCT (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, and per AmaryllisGardener. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 18:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW per all above. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:05, 6 December 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. czar ⨹ 04:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderking

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion (a11) but it appears to be real so a11 doesn't apply. That being said, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:GNG FrogSwitch (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I honestly can't see where this specific firework is particularly notable. A search does show that a firework by this name exists, but not where it would be notable or even well known enough to be a valid redirect target. Plus there are so many different names for fireworks that if we were to create one for each different variation we'd have thousands upon millions of names redirecting to the main article for fireworks, none of which would likely be valid redirect search terms. Most of them aren't as well as "black cat" or "snake" or "sparkler", after all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. No properly sourced evidence of notability in its own right, and Tokyogirl is exactly right that we can't realistically create an article or a redirect for every possible name (inclusive of regional dialect variations? oh dear) of every possible firework. (I did get a chuckle out of "Article created by Youtube user Carolina Pyro", although I was enough of a party-pooper to remove it since Wikipedia articles aren't allowed to contain author credits in their body text.) Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above (note that I redirected this to Firecracker but the article creator reverted me). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW GSMR (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources doesn't qualify for inclusion and warrants deletion per WP:FAILN. It should be closed early per SNOW? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:11, 6 December 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 deleted by NawlinWiki per CSD#G10 (existing article: Thunderking). (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk to me 03:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder King

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. It was tagged with a speedy delete (a11) when created, which suggests it may have been previously deleted. I'm not nominating it for speedy deletion though because although it's not notable it does seem to be real, so a11 doesn't apply (nor do any other speedy deletion criteria). Tchaliburton (talk) 01:50, 3 December 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. czar ⨹ 04:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall–UCF football rivalry

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

No indication this "rivalry" meets WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY. Unsuccessful in finding national sources that indicate this was ever considered a major "rivalry", which makes this article original research. UCF since moved to the American Athletic Conference so its very unlikely these two teams will face again. Delete Secret ^account 01:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a significant rivalry. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't considered a major rivalry at the time (although it was a minor one) but the teams are unlikely to play again regularly. Chuy1530 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See all of the above. Ben^Yes? 00:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college football "rivalry." Subject CFB series does not satisfy the applicable notability guidelines per WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG, with significant coverage as a rivalry, not as a recurring game series, in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the foregoing reasons. JohnInDC (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:17, 9 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuselit

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable niche magazine; lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. References provided fail to meet WP:GNG. Previous AFD resulted in unianimous deletion, and subject has not increased in significant coverage since. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Lacks significant coverage" is on the mark as I never even know such of a magazine title. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created and developed by a couple of WP:SPA accounts. Multiple searches (Guardian, Highbeam, Questia, Google) are turning up no evidence of notability; no reason to overturn the previous AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to be meeting the standard of inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:29, 6 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra cracker

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

I can't find any evidence that this meets WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; obvious A11. He even says this thing was created by a youtube user (possibly himself) GSMR (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search indicates that these are real -- just not notable -- so A11 doesn't apply. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. NickCT (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention in reliable secondary sources anywhere I could find. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Like I said on another AfD, this doesn't seem to be a particularly notable firework and it's also not well known enough to really be a valid redirect search term. There are so many different names for fireworks that (potentially) creating a redirect for each one can lead to having thousands of search terms that don't really clearly state anything about the whole firework concept for that specific variation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 05:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Not eligible for inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:32, 6 December 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. Consensus clearly against deletion. Discussion of a page move or category creation can be continued on the article's talk page. czar ⨹ 04:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amistad Press books

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

advertising The Banner talk 00:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can't see how the article advertises anything. The article just seems like a list of books published by Amistad Press, I can't see how it would advertise anything. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like a sales catalogue from Amistad. And without independent sources it is just an unverified list, violating Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Beside that: this is a list of non-notable ( = unlinked) books issued by a publisher not notable enough to have its own article. The Banner talk 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not look anything like a sales catalog as there are no prices or reviews. There is not one thing on this entry that is promotional. It also does not violate anything. Notable or non-notable is very subjective.
Keep, if this article violates Wikipedia policies then so does this List of books published by Farrar, Straus, and Giroux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Farrar,_Straus_and_Giroux_books) since this page was created in the same style as that page.Rjradic (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing is useless. The Banner talk 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comparing is very useful if other articles have the exact same format.
    - Comparing is really more and more important. In the past Wikipedia was the Wild West; now that it is more settled down we should be more and more concerned with creating consistency of treatment. I kinda think Farar, Straus, and Giroux books are more clearly important than Amistad Press ones. Perhaps there should be a list of Amistad Press books, at least as a section within an article on the imprint/former publisher, but the list need not be a comprehensive list of all of their publications; perhaps it should just be the more important ones. Comparisons matter though, about fairness and about making AFD and other Wikipedia processes semi-rational. --do ncr am 22:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a very helpful list from one of the most respected imprints for multicultural literature. Schools and libraries will use if often. Kmccook (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this article even being considered for deletion?? There is no promotion or bias attributed to this entry whatsoever. This is why users end up leaving Wikipedia and what keeps individuals from not editing here is the fear of the article not being accepted. This has got to stop. This article is in exactly the same format as this one: List of Farrar, Straus and Giroux books. This is how knowledge is disseminated to the masses. Restricting or refusing knowledge is a lost to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wthowerto (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't look like advertising to me. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Beside that: this is a list of non-notable ( = unlinked) books issued by a publisher not notable enough to have its own article." <- Just because a page doesn't exist yet does not mean the subject is not notable enough. It just means we as Wikipedians are challenged to the task of adding knowledge to Wikipedia where it does not yet exist. Hopefully by adding this page someone will recognize that these subjects are notable and should be added. You can't assume because it doesn't yet exist on Wikipedia it shouldn't exist. These ideas are not equal. Rjradic (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but probably should be moved to Amistad Press and edited to be a section there, first. It seems backwards to create a list of the imprint / former publisher's books, before an article about the publisher. But the publisher/imprint is notable too and the list can exist as a section there. --do ncr am 03:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree not advertising. Move to Amistad Press may be appropriate. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question/suggestion to turn it into a category instead: Isn't this the type of thing that we typically use categories for? In other words, stuff like Category:HarperCollins books, Category:Penguin Books books and the like? The problem with lists like this is that they are going to be forever incomplete and also (most likely) end up being an extremely long, exhausting list of books that doesn't really accomplish much that a category wouldn't be able to accomplish in a far easier, cleaner, and faster format. With potentially long, exhausting lists like this at some point it would have to be pruned down by saying that only notable works published through Amistad Press should be on the page, as is the case with various other list articles that could have similar problems. Once we establish that only notable books (IE, books with enough coverage to merit an article) should be on the list, it makes it kind of obvious that rather than a long list we should instead have the category "Category:Amistad Press books" and mark at the top of the page "Books originally published by Amistad Press". I honestly don't see much reason for us to have a list page that lists every book a publisher made- that's just excessive and again (I want to emphasize this) it would be redundant to the creation of a category specific to Amistad Press books. As far as the books on the list go that don't have an article, dump 'em in this list, unless some of you want to try to make an article for some of the books. (And oh man, I would love you forever if any of you were to help out with the requested articles page as a whole.) Again, this seems sort of redundant to the pre-existing policy for lists of books by publishers, which is to make a category instead of a list page for the reasons stated above. tokyogirl79 10:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Good question, but the answer is well-resolved previously, in wp:CLT. That guideline is about the usefulness of having overlapping categories, list-articles, and navigation templates. List-articles can include pictures and references and red-links while categories cannot. They complement each other. See wp:CLT. If there is a category there can/should be a list and vice versa. In this case, I honestly am not completely sure it is worth having a category for those with articles and having a list for all of the Amistad Press books, but I am pretty sure that having an article about the publisher/imprint and a section on at least the most notable books is worthwhile. So perhaps the list should be reduced down, but that is a matter for argument at the talk page, not for AFD. Surely some sub-list is worth listing. --do ncr am 22:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many such lists here on Wikipedia that could forever be edited. For example, List of Egyptologists or Hittitologist. These are just two of many similar lists on Wikipedia which could be edited indefinitely. If a list is something that Wikipedia does not want to engage in that more than half of the entries should be deleted. --Wthowerto

Well perhaps. I think there is room/need for a list of the publisher/imprint's books, at least the most notable ones among them, at least as part of an article about the publisher/imprint itself. It is okay for a list to be an incomplete list of items of its type, focusing on the more important items of the type. There are many such incomplete lists in Wikipedia. Not clear if there should be a comprehensive list of ALL of the Amistad Press books here. That is matter for discussion at Talk page of the article. --do ncr am 22:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I opened what I hope may be a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Thoughts on lists of books by imprint or publisher. In passing it includes mention of this AFD and also of an ongoing RFD about List of For Dummies books. It's not wp:canvassing to do so (it is not biased, not at personal talk pages, is transparent) and frankly I am really seeking general discussion and feedback; please do consider contributing to general discussion there. --do ncr am 00:16, 9 December 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 going to be bold and go ahead and close this. It's going to be a nightmare removing all the templates, but we'll get to it. The nomination has been withdrawn and I'm going to lean towards the fact that the weak deletes didn't realize that these were "Populated, legally-recognized places". Should someone object to a non-admin closing this, please ping me on the talk page or on my talk page and I'd be more than happy to revert. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency MR-1

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

Non-notable constituency in Pakistan. A Google search indicates no discussion in secondary sources. Consider speedy A7. GoldenRing (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Delete per nom. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you can just say that you're nominating all of the articles in Template:Constituencies of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly instead of listing some of them individually. ;) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's the idea. I was trying to follow the process but gave up at this point. There are still >90 of these that aren't tagged. GoldenRing (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TNT delete; see WP:TNT if you don't know what I mean. These are ordinary legislative constituencies comparable to Pennsylvania House of Representatives, District 14 (Pennsylvania, USA) or Electoral district of Lockyer (Queensland, Australia), so they're notable, but the articles are so short as to be completely useless. Worse, they make searching more difficult: if you're trying to find online information about their subjects, you'll run into tons of Wikipedia mirrors. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They're The PKs are already listed in Constituencies of Pakistan ~~(though that list doesn't quite agree with the template???)~~. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that some are provincial, others are national. So, the MRs and WRs should probably be listed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, now that some/most? of them are something more than a single sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:GoldenRing picks a single article (reserved constituency) to paint all the others the same. Regarding Useless, these are the constituencies of a province with a population of more than 28 million. 99 constituencies (not considering the 23 reserved) for 28 million comes to 282,828 people per constituency. With reserved: 229,508 per constituency. They are not non-notable in Pakistan. Pakistan has 4 provinces. Please do not compare to Queensland, Australia (5 million populations which is a little bit more than the population of Peshawar District (one district out of 26). I consider this to be a blatant error. Important articles, created by User:Faizan, in trying to improve poorly covered topics on Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What benefit does anyone gain from these pages? Unless there are aberrations that I've not seen (to which my TNT delete proposal wouldn't apply), they're all basically "CONSTITUENCY NAME is a constituency for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan." No information whatsoever, and thus thoroughly useless to someone who's trying to learn about one of them; we are an encyclopedia, not a blue-link generator. How are we supposed to know that MR-1 is a reserved constituency? It's not in the one-line stub or in the member directory. Finally, you may wish to re-read my comparisons to QLD and PA: my point is that they're notable, just like QLD and PA legislative districts are, but that they're so thoroughly junk that we'd be better off without them. As is, these substubs harm the process of building the encyclopedia; we're so extensively mirrored that their existence causes there to be lots of unreliable sources with the same titles, getting in the way of finding reliable sources about these constituencies. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes no benefit is gained from these cons. but if you are a little patient they are being improved for exammple here. If you look at following revisions.

here
Here. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my TNT deletion proposal doesn't apply to things that you've expanded; thank you for that one, and for any others that you've done likewise. I don't understand the point of your links to the AK-47 and to the Glasgow Anniesland constituency. Let me just remind you that all information ought to be cited, and neither of the links in the References section of PK-01 mentions that specific constituency; it's not placed between the NAs and the PPs at http://elections.com.pk/results.php?elecID=6&start=251, either. Please begin adding sources that say exactly what you say they say. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is your TNT proposal does apply to any of these. TNT is for hopelessly irreparable pages. These are stubs. How are they hopelessly irreparable and the damage is beyond fixing? Plus the Ak-47 and the other was there to show you that every featured/good article starts with a stub. Btw thanks for the feedback. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Although the articles are in a poor state, I believe the subjects are inherently notable – they should be left there to be expanded – what purpose does deletion serve? These are second level constituencies, akin to those of the Scottish parliament or California State Assembly, of which we have entire sets (see Category:Constituencies of the Scottish Parliament and Category:California State Assembly districts) and I see no reason why a second level constituency in Pakistan is less notable than those in other countries (particularly ones much smaller than it – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has a population of 20 million, making it larger than a significant number of countries). Number 57 15:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harsh 2580: Improvements are beginning to be made by Saadkhan12345 - Constituency PK-01 (Peshawar-I) now has the results from the last election and is referenced. Election results have also been added to some of the others (e.g. Constituency PK-02 (Peshawar-II), Constituency PK-03 (Peshawar-III), Constituency PK-04 (Peshawar-IV) etc) Number 57 12:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just want to bring to the notice of all editors that we already have articles on both, the legislative assemblies and the Lok Sabha (Upper House) constituencies in India. MLA's and MP's from respective constituencies have their own articles. I doubt many of these MP's/MLA's have significant coverage per GNG, but there are articles on most of them. This is a list of state wise constituencies from Vidhan Sabha i.e, a Legislative assembly. Just for example, look at this article on a legislative assembly in India - Dehradun Cantt (Uttarakhand Assembly constituency). All the references are primary. I would just say that, if those in favor of keep want the articles in question to be kept then these shouldn't be just a one-line stubs, because they would serve no purpose and I am skeptical that any of these legislative assemblies would gain media coverage in the future, and hence all these articles should atleast have information on the elected representatives from the constituencies. Harsh (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Delete - Agree completely with User:Nyttend. All of these articles must be deleted. They add nothing of value to the topic. Constituencies of Pakistan must be expanded until it is considered appropriate for any of these constituencies to have their own standalone article. Harsh (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my position from Delete to Weak delete. Harsh (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is non-repeated information in any of the articles, merge to Constituencies of Pakistan (or another national/provincial constituencies list based on ClarityFiend's comment); otherwise delete per Harsh_2580 - expand into standalone articles only if it becomes appropriate. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those arguing to keep these articles need to demonstrate that they meet the general notability guideline or some subject-specific notability criterion. As far as I am aware (someone please correct me if, as is quite possible, I've missed it), there is no specific notability criteria that applies to electoral constituencies. That being so, they are only notable if they meet the general criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I sure can't find any. Even the examples of 'improved' pages only reference primary sources (electoral commissions etc giving results). It's hard to imagine why local constituencies would receive significant coverage in the WP:RS, but perhaps there is some category of literature that I'm not aware of that discusses these? I'll also ask around editors who've worked on eg the Scottish constituencies about notability in this area. GoldenRing (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to bear in mind that we are talking about an area of a developing country where (a) it is less common for print media to be available online, (b) the local media is likely to be in Urdu, Pashto and numerous other languages that aren't English and (c) these languages are not written in Latin script. As a result, it's not surprising that you can't find much coverage of them online – the category of literature you're looking for probably won't be available to you.
- Also, whilst there is no guideline on constituency notability (as far as I am aware), as I pointed out above, we have complete sets of articles on second-level administrative constituencies in several cases (and for jurisdictions much smaller than this province), which suggests there may be some kind of precedent that these are indeed notable. A related guideline is WP:POLITICIAN, which states that members of state and provincial legislatures are notable. I would say that if the politician is automatically notable, the constituency they are elected from is too. Number 5 7 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we should consider hiring a lawyer. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because they have not been given enough time to expand... since they are constituencies and have a multitude of people voting in them, there's no question of notability similar to all real places being notable once proved that they exist. Further, they should not be "quick AFD'd" (after a month? of creation)... let's give them a reasonable time to expand (WP:PAK doesn't have much editors as compared to other areas and projects). If no improvement is observed, then we can discuss a merge with the parent article if it is not adding much value in an independent article. Even in that case, I would support the merge only to cut down on the navigation. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are clearly notable, so they should stay, regardless of how badly written they are. Badly written or incomplete articles need to be improved or expanded, not deleted. This seems to me a classic case of systemic bias - just think how you would treat constituencies of comparable size in the UK or US. --NSH002 (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I came across a similarly-unreferenced article on a constituency in the UK or US, I would nominate that for deletion, too - I just happened to stumble across these articles. GoldenRing (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't delete them. You add references. Btw theres no deadline on Wikipedia. If you happened to find a stub on a notable topic (even one sentence) first think of improving it. If not thn tag it. Almost every featured/good article article starts out as a stub. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is not an issue as electoral districts and constituencies are generally notable, and there are hundreds if not thousands of articles existing on them. It is also premature at this point to have an AfD as the articles in question have not been given enough time to develop. Mar4d (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to cite a policy or guideline for that opinion? GoldenRing (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing admins please note, I've tried to start a conversation [here] regarding notability criteria for constituencies - it may be appropriate to defer closing this AfD until that discussion comes to some conclusion. GoldenRing (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn On further reading of WP:GEOLAND I think these constituencies fall under the provision for Populated, legally-recognized places. As such I wish to withdraw this nomination. I'm uncertain of the exact procedure for doing so, though - could someone help? GoldenRing (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Non-admin closure isn't possible. Wait for another admin to close discussion. Harsh (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all -All recognized places are presumed to be notable and are not required to meet GNG. TNT doesn't apply in any the above listed article, as I see them now. There is nothing to fix. They are neither WP:PROMO nor WP:COPYVIO. They are just short article. I'm not sure how did an admin miss that, Wikipedia is a work in Process. These are all created just 2 weeks ago. Give them time to develop. As far as notability is not concerned and articles in question don't fall under WP:NOT, I see no reason to not keep them all. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Legislative districts are an inherently encyclopedic topic. WP:IAR — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 10 December 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.

[1] ttp://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/notes/university-of-exeter/2012/international-management-notes/samples/international-management-strategy-formulation-and-implementation

[1]