Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 February	14 February >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion in World Farming[edit]

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

Highly promotional, both for the organization and its causes. and there is no evidence except for their own statements that they did what they claim to have done. If they are notable enough for an article, which I am not sure of, it would be necessary to start over. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization is certainly notable, and any other issues can be solved through editing. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I rewrote the article. I think the promotional tone is gone now, and it seems to have clear notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The organisation is clearly notable, and deletion will not solve any remaining issues. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 14:38, 20 February 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 Finding_Me#Other_media. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Me: The Series (TV series)[edit]

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

Part of a rather spammy small walled garden around Finding Me. The original movie may be barely notable, but there is no indication this spinoff series is, nor its sequal Finding Me: Truth which I seperately nominated Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Finding_Me#Other_media. I found enough coverage as a whole to merit a page for the main film with mention of the other media, but there just isn't enough for individual entries. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article. Only difference between this and the mention there is a cast & episode list. — Wylie pedia 15:57, 20 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Iranian protests[edit]

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

Annual rallies. No notability. ,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and per a lack of coverage found in a google search. Clear failure of WP:Notability Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Racesbeet (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: this article has been created by User:Herezola, sockpuppet of User:Mangoeater1000, and User:Racesbeet is his new sock. --SeanKesser (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each annual rally does not merit its own page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 14 February 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. There is clearly no consensus to delete these articles. Further discussion about whether the articles should be kept in their present form, redirected or merged can continue in the appropriate forum(s).Mojo Hand (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Series of articles of "LGBT history in..." by User:Lugnuts[edit]

(View AfD)

Series of pseudo-stubs of "LGBT history in..." by User:Lugnuts are entirely unnecessary and duplicates existing extensive articles, for example data from LGBT history in Malta (1973) exist in main article of LGBT rights in Malta. The same with the other articles. All of these are the same pseudo-stubs, differ only by date and duplicate information from the main articles. Were created by a single user within last 72 hours. Should be removed using a template {Speedy delete} but author reverted it. So, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. In my opinion the best option is Remove all or redirects (similarly as did administrator DESiegel). Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only issue is that those articles haven't been tagged for deletion. Regardless of how new they are, readers looking at those new articles would have no idea they are up for deletion. Suggest adding the relevant templates to each article. Stalwart111 22:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See behavior of user:Lugnuts [1], I suspect that if I insert templates to this articles, my edits will be reverted by author - user:Lugnuts. I do not have time to deal with such individuals. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF aside, not informing the community of your nomination to delete an article may result in the AFD being speedy-closed as invalid. Best just to follow the basic instructions at WP:AFD for group nominations. Stalwart111 15:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is also considered courteous to inform the article creator, User:Lugnuts about this discussion by using the standard notification template on their Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all ~~and close~~ ~~None of the articles are actually tagged for deletion.~~ I've asked the nom to discuss the articles on the relevant talkpages, but has refused to do so. There may be some overlap, but these are different articles from the LGBT rights articles. A good example is how LGBT rights in Finland is different from LGBT history in Finland. These stubs have been created to populate the redlinks in the template {{Europe topic|LGBT history in}}, which already had half-a-dozen or so blue links before I started creating these articles. Finally, per WP:BEFORE, 1.If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. All these article can be expanded to include a detailed timeline for the country it relates to. At worst redirect to the "rights" article as a possible redirect. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments around listing multiple topics at the same AfD

You as author should not vote for leaving your own articles. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have no clue how AfD works, do you? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. You as author should not vote for leaving your own articles. Comment ok, but not vote. If you gave a vote, I also. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read how AfD works. Please. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also. PS. Please quote the sentence that my vote is prohibited and allows you to delete a post of another user. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Subtropical-man has been removed by the Subtropical-man. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

READ WP:AFD, Subtropical - It clearly states "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read it but this is my comment!!!, you have no right to change it or remove. WP:AFD do not write anything about removing and changing posts by other users. AFD write only "should" - not "must". I have the right to write comments. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, read WP:AFD, the bit at WP:DISCUSSAFD. The bit I quote is about repeating your delete vote, which it clearly states do not do as you are the nominator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, got to love the irony of the userbox on your page "This user is an inclusionist" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm an inclusionist, this is my first request to AfD. Why? This is useless pseudo-stubs with only one sentence which duplicates the information from the main article. Absurd. Absurd. Absurd. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your support for your own deletion nomination is assumed. You seem to have plenty of time to duplicate your opinions here ~~but still haven't taken time out to add deletion nomination templates to each article. I'm tempted to boldly non-admin close this AFD as invalid if you can't/won't do so~~. Stalwart111 15:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See, not so hard. Stalwart111 15:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I "support own deletion nomination" as well as author - user:Lugnuts support leave own articles :) If user:Lugnuts remove own vote, I also do it. And yes, articles are marked :) Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most certainly educational and encyclopedic. Good deal of sustained secondary source coverage over time, in a preponderance of multiple reliable references. — Cirt (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rights articles usually discuss history, so unless there's any obvious history content that doesn't belong to the rights articles - redirect. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Joy; one-sentence articles don't make much sense. The content can be moved to a separate article when there's enough of material. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playing devil's advocate here, if I expanded an article by adding another sentence, would that be enough? Where's the cut-off for saying "yes, redirect it" and "no, there's enough content". ;-) Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a one-sentence or two-sentence paragraph, it doesn't merit its own article. When it gets longer (a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article), it may be summarized in the main article and treated more precisely in its own article. See WP:SPLIT. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that Subtropical-man has been blocked for 48hrs for disruptive edits across multiple country templates by removing both the LGBT history and LGBT rights links. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now - I compared LGBT rights in Lithuania with LGBT history in Lithuania. The first article actually has far more information on the LGBT history than the latter. I think the test here is that the LGBT history articles need to be more informative about LGBT history than the rights articles in order to stand on their own, otherwise, we're directing our readers away from a better source for the information they're looking for. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. if anything the LGBT rights in ____ articles should be merged into the LGBT history in ____ articles, as the contemporary LGBT history of every country is intertwined with its rights for LGBT people. However the rights of LGBT people is not the full history, by any stretch of the imagination. History would also include notable events and people that may only be indirectly connected to LGBT rights, and that is subject to who is doing the interpretation of events. In essence we are suggesting by removing the history of LGBT articles, that the only thing notable is the struggle for their human rights when that is only one reported on aspect. Which is a false POV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree in principle, but if we're going down that route, we should probably copy over all the relevant history information from the rights articles. Expansion will, of course, be necessary after that, but, y'know, there is no deadline and all. I just don't quite like the idea of having more information on the subject in a different article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sportfan5000:, note that articles have been reported to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion because currently this useless pseudo-stubs with only one sentence which duplicates the information from the main article, not because they are not encyclopedic. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2) 18:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The main concern is for future development. By deleting the parent article LGBT history in ____ we are suggesting that the only notable content is regarding the contemporary issues of LGBT rights. The modern movement for LGBT rights was sparked in 1969, but LGBT history traces back to the origins of civilizations, verified in most cultures. I think the LGBT rights in ____ articles should be summarized under a section for contemporary rights, and the parent article peppered with other logical sections for others to expand. From what I've read about Wikipedia, the majority of content is anonymously added. It follows that the structure of an article that needs expansion will encourage additions, rather than the absence of the parent article completely. Additionally each of those parent articles could have a section just for LGBT people of that country, which we already have in the categories. Likewise we have categories for LGBT culture, which would feed LGBT history, not necessarily LGBT rights. What we have is a set of articles thats subject areas need expansions on, not deletion, or merger. And the likeliest best way to do that is to have an existing structure for willing editors. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading too much into the process of deletion of articles, let alone the compromise solution of redirecting them. A lot of topics have potential, but that doesn't mean that gobs of sub-stubs are the best way to approach the issue. If someone is actually willing to do some work on writing these history articles, these sub-stubs provide hardly any actual structure. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with WP is that only a small amount of editors actually create brand new articles. My own experience shows that once an article (no matter how small) actually exists, editors are willing to add to it, rather than starting from scratch. Is this one-liner any less valid? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm reading too much into this at all. We're looking at the likelihood of this content existing, and being added to, when there is no structure at all for it to exist, versus easily adding to it where a vacuum exists and they have a place to share information. This is at the very basis of collaboration, a structure that encourages participation. Is there a rule that says a stub has to have a set amount of information? Or only that it is indeed a notable subject? No one is seriously suggesting these articles are not on a notable subject, only that their humble starts are too humble. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - I was involved in the initial technicalities of this AFD and in a discussion with the nominator about that. But keeping an eye on it has motivated me to actually opine with regard to the articles in question. Sportfan5000 is right - there is a significant difference between the subjects LGBT history in ____ and LGBT rights in ____. Not all history relates to the issue of rights (significant figures, events etc) and not all rights-related issues are significant enough to be considered part of that country's LGBT history. The two are significantly different and there's no reason we shouldn't have coverage of both. The suggestion from the nominator that the articles are, "useless pseudo-stubs with only one sentence which duplicates the information from the main article" (a claim which has been repeated several times) doesn't hold water. Even if that were true, it's not a reason for deletion - it's a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. There's nothing wrong with creating stubs provided you allow (nay, encourage) collegial contributions from the community to expand them. Length of an article is not a sound deletion rationale. Stalwart111 08:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I vote for merging all this articles into one. I dont really see the importance of having as it is today a bit over 200 articles, if we only count UN recognized nations. Add some more who are independent but not UN recognized. As it is today its way easier to read one good article where all this countrys are in. Its easier to read, compare the countrys and so on. If some countries are in need of more writing then just make a special page for that country.Stepojevac (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Bishops Baseball Team[edit]

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

British University baseball team, seems to be a non-notable subject Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with a few odd historical exceptions like the Boat Race, British university sport is basically completely non-notable, and this is especially true in a very minor sport (in the UK at any rate) like baseball -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a low level amateur team. noting that baseball is not a top level university sport in the UK. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 18 February 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 delete. G12 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exim Trading[edit]

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

Unverifiable article about a Danish publisher of child pornography. The article's only reference is a page on an activist site that does not even mention the company. When asked for sources, the author stated here that his/her information comes from The Hidden Wiki and acknowledged a lack of above ground sources. My own searches for RS coverage get some mention of the company's founder but almost nothing about Exim Trading. Fails WP:V and WP:CORP. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears to be a copyvio of the post by Truthseeker 34 datestamped 25-07-2013, 02:40 PM on this forum page, and uses the reference linked to there. The company existed and published the named publications according to something, somewhere in these two issues of the Victoria Government Gazette (pdfs that I cannot search). I can't find anything else, and mere existence is not enough to justify an article. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 13 February 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) buff bills 7701 01:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winter storm naming[edit]

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

This is essentially a promotional piece for The Weather Channel, a lone source that serves a portion of the US Market, which is followed by a list of names, and then paragraphs of the places that condemn the naming practises of TWC. Merge to The Weather Channel. Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't love the title, but the naming of winter storms has gotten a significant amount of press coverage over a significant amount of time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good sources, controversy in the news. --Pmsyyz (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG only presumes notability based on reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS is contravened by the latter point, and both can be equally mentioned in The Weather Channel's article (much condensed). Most of the press coverage has been bashing TWC for continuing to commercialize these names despite protest from a number of key organizations. It's also perpetuating the use of these pointless and local names in the lede of the way-to-many winter storm articles we have because of the panic of the press. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of this subject is made clear by multiple independent reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't stand the concept of this (The second TWC-named storm in 2012 had a successful AfD), but this has insulated itself beyond TWC into other media, social media and the like and has notability beyond what we had in the Brutus AfD. However I'd prefer the article also have a history of local storm naming (e.g. local stations which have named their area winter storms for generations) in addition to the national Weather Channel concept. Nate • (chatter) 18:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winter storm naming is not confined to the weather channel or the United States. Plenty of reliable secondary sources make up the article. I was thinking of writing a Wikipedia essay on how to go about naming winter storm articles, consensus seems to be in favor of leaving the WC names out of the article titles. (Per NPOV, nobody can argue against the storms being winter storms). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged the article with a worldwide tag, seeing the article is named "Winter storm naming" it needs winter storm naming in other countries as well that follow or do not follow this practice. I know in Europe for example in some countries they have a winter storm naming system. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something along the lines of Winter Storm Nomenclature. I do think this is probably notable however I really am on the fence overall. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the article has some challenges, but the naming of winter storms in the US is both notable and verifiable, as shown in reliable sources, so the article should stay. Potential renaming of the article is a subject for the Talk page, and not for this AfD. Having said that, if that discussion gets started after this AfD has run its course, I'd be happy to weigh in if someone pings me to let me know it is going on. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I see no reason to remove it at all. We have far more "promotional" articles. This is related to TWC, but would be too separate to merge. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Obviously has multiple reliable sources. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This article does not offer a worldwide view and only represents what one commercial weather entity names storms in the US. This article should be merged into The Weather Channel to reflect that.

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. K. Engineers & Company[edit]

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

All the facts in this article are in the infobox, which is copied from the Infosys article. Similarly, the references in this article are the first two from the Infosys article. Going by the contents of said infobox, the company would have to employ almost the entire population of the city in which it is headquartered. I have no doubt that this is a real company, but it is this one, which I don't think is yet notable enough for an article.

(NB. this article has previously been declined for speedy deletion.) Kateshortforbob _talk 15:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Surely this should go (and should have gone already) either as a hoax article (claiming Infosys results as their own) or as consisting of text duplicated from the Infosys article without appropriate attribution? At any rate no evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a complete hoax. A Google search shows directory listings for a J. K. Engineers & Company in Ankleshwar, India. They make heat exchangers. However, I don't see a credible assertion of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable: all I can find are routine listings.TheLongTone (talk) 11:58, 20 February 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. This one's admittedly tricky. The greatest concern appears to be that given the subject has yet to play in a pro game, he fails specific notability of athletes (NFOOTBALL), leaving the general notability guideline (GNG); so, we turn to the sources, in which the most substantial, significant, and reliable coverage is over a single controversy and his response. As the controversy+response is considered an "event" by our standards, and especially because the subject clearly feels harmed by it, this very much embodies the spirit of our policy of avoiding harm with living-people biographies because it ends up falling back on being a biography that is notable due to a single event (BLP1E). Should he actually end up playing in a way that meets NFOOTBALL, for example, or truly becomes obviously notable on a seperate track for GNG, then there's a better policy-and-guideline-based rationale for keeping/re-creating the article, as simply finding it interesting or curious is unfortunately insufficient. slakr^\ talk / 03:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Minala[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason provided. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Controversy in media about age is case of WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 15:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, only notable for a one-off event and fails WP:NFOOTBALL too. JMHamo (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's a pro footballer and as such deserves an entry.--[[User:Doris Kami]] (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doris Kami: on what policy or guidelines is that based? Giant Snowman 12:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't played in a pro league yet so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. ukexpat (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm confused. How old is he? Nfitz (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, per ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: you have failed to answer the WP:BLP1E aspect. Giant Snowman 12:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG > BLP1E. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But GNG isn't met when all the coverage is related to one issue. That is not the "significant coverage" required by GNG. Giant Snowman 12:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But BLP1E also fails for thousands of footy bios of Joe Bloggs who made one appearence for one club in 1903. GNG and plenty of WP:RS easily beats it, and therefore making this person meet WP:N. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; if the footballer meets WP:NFOOTBALL then BLP1E does not apply. What notability guideline does this article meet? Please don't say GNG again. Giant Snowman 13:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does, as they were only famous/notable for one event. This guy meets GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, BLP1E does not apply to footballers with 1 appearance as there is no degree of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL - you are notable whether you have 1 or 10 or 100 appearances. John Smith, who made 1 appearance in 1903, is notable for being a professional footballer; he is not notable for the actual individual appearance. Would you argue that John Smith, who won one gold medal in the 1908 Olympics, is a case of BLP1E? And again, where is the "significant coverage" that is not related to his age i.e. the one event that has given him any note? Giant Snowman 14:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BLP1E does apply. Esp. when you have a bio that has no birth/death info, nothing above "he played 1 game for x club". But your missing the point. This article meets WP:GNG. Now continue with your hounding of editors who dare to disagree with you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Please take an article where the player has 1 appearance to AFD, citing BLP1E, and see how well you do. It may well get deleted on GNG grounds, but it would never get deleted on BLP1E. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Giant Snowman 19:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The case is interesting and merits attention. After reading scattered information on the web, it was nice to come to Wikipedia and find the info summarised with a good list of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.79.203 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "interesting and merits attention" does not make the subject notable.--ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Surely a basic requirement for any BLP is that it is about someone who has done something or been something of an enduring nature. This guy has had his age mistaken. We probably all have in our lives. The fact that in his case he is associated with Lazio does not make him notable.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the coverage he was getting in the international media before the whole age thing blew up, the WP:BLP1E issue isn't applicable. [2] Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage was he receiving that wasn't WP:ROUTINE? JMHamo (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- " It was routine, but that isn't the threshold for WP:BLP1E. It states that If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.. So neither WP:ROUTINE nor WP:CRYSTAL are applicable here. WP:BLP1E in particular sets out the possibility of future notability, thus explicity removing WP:CRYSTAL and setting a lower threshold. Nfitz (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mom. – Michael (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Agree the question about his age is WP:BLP1E, it received a few reports, but was quickly denied and does not seem to be part of any wider news story, nor does it seemed to have attracted any long term news attention. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a relativly well sourced article and there is a relativly interesting story about this person. I could see why someone would want to delete it but I think Wikipedia should keep this article.Inter&anthro (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Minala's case is curious and widely commented. Moreover, he is a member of S.S. Lazio. Matvilho (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but he has not played fortheir senior team so, as has been stated numerous times above fails WP:NFOOTY. In addition, curiosity about a player does not turn BLP1E into GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:24, 20 February 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. Redirecting a disambiguation page is unuseful. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harbaugh Bowl (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Harbaugh Bowl already redirects to Super Bowl XLVII and there are only two entries, making this a twodab situation. Beerest 2 talk 14:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Bowl XLVII. The 2011 game is already mentioned there as well. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 16:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Bowl XLVII Per above, the article itself is just the name, so redirecting is the best option. ///EuroCarGT 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AfD is the wrong venue for this, I think. Carrite (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: How? Harbaugh Bowl is already a redirect, so we need this to be delet. Beerest 2 talk 01:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Carrite, AFD is not the right place for this discussion. Talk:Super Bowl XLVII seems to be a better location, this way we aren't limited by AFD standing rules and outcomes (which we won't get anyway). I recommend Administrative Close (or nominator withdrawl) and re-open the discussion on the Super Bowl Talk Page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: OK, how is this wrong for AFD. This DAB needs to be deleted. Talking on the Super Bowl page wouldnt help with that. Beerest 2 Talk page 20:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this isn't related to article content, merely navigation and administrative directions. Possibly article naming conventions. We're not discussing if an article named "Harbaugh Bowl" should be kept, we're discussing if we should keep the disambiguation page for two games that have been referred to as "Harbaugh Bowl" in the media.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking I hope. DABs are routinely discuss at AfD. The desired outcome here is deletion. So really AfD is the perfect venue for this. Discussing on the talk page wouldnt result in deletion of this page. Beerest 2 Talk page 20:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not joking. But after some research I've learned that I'm also wrong. After reading up at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deletion, I see that "Although disambiguation pages are not articles, a disambiguation page may be listed at Articles for deletion to discuss whether the disambiguation page should be deleted." Carry on, I'm going to go wash the gunk out of my eye.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is just a dab of a redirect, and that dab isn't even that useful. buff bills 7701 01:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only page it is directly parallel with is Super Bowl XLVII. One page is not enough to need a disambiguation page. Should be deleted, and maybe slightly mentioned in the Super Bowl XLVII page. Adamh4 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Talbot (author)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the standard under WP:AUTHOR for notability Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original AfD here. jps (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking original AfD - had trouble finding it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original proposal for deletion removed on basis that there was a previous AfD on this but I can't find it. Retaining 2nd nomination since I've told a few interested parties about the AfD already and want to make it easy for interested parties to find this, but may have been misinformed about existence of first AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books published by major publishers and reviewed by mainstream and trade-specific publications alike, and it appears he was nominated for a few awards, including a Locus for his 1982 novel. We may need to work a little harder on this one to find some older sources, but he's clearly a noteworthy author. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect/rename to The Holographic Universe, since Talbot's book, being used by mainstream academics as an example of New Age thinking [3], may actually have a bigger footprint than its author does. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect would be problematic here only because his 1982 novel was actually nominated for an award. There's not an unambiguous target. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Talbot nailed it, and nothing has happened that invalidates that decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to point out something specific from that? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is cited in hundreds of books, he has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors, and he has a New York Times obituary. Like most pseudoscience, a lot of the coverage for Talbot is in unreliable sources (blogs, youtube videos, discussion forums) but there is a lot of it. In my considered opinion, he meets our notability standards. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article as it stands doesn't make any mention of Locus nomination for his fiction work and provides no citations to verify that his book has any specific relevance in new age circles. The references in the extant article don't really support notability in the same way that the arguments here do. If anybody can provide references to correct those issues it'd go a long way toward abrogating my original concern regarding notability under WP:AUTHOR Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notable books are notable, but it does not mean the author is notable. That is yet to be established, specifically WP:AUTHOR criteria I assume is relevant here is "The person's work (or works) ... has become a significant monument". Where are the sources for that claim? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's number 4a on the list on that page. He clearly meets number 1 -- "The person is ... widely cited by peers or successors" (many other pseudoscientists and crackpots cite him), number 2 -- "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" (his ideas are certainly original and well known) and number 4c "has won significant critical attention" (lots of criticism on skeptical blogs and forums, some skeptical reviews). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use pseudoscientists and crackpots as sources for criteria 1. That's the whole point of WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. There is no indication that his "original idea" is "well known" (the universe as a holograph is an idea that is used by other more serious thinkers), and it certainly is not significant that I can tell. I don't think that the criticism from skeptical blogs and fora are good sources on which to base a biography. In short, your argument isn't very convincing to me. jps (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand what a reliable source for determining notability is. For example, if we found that a particular crackpot was extensively discussed in the publications of Immanuel Velikovsky, Ken Ham, Erich von Daniken, Jenny McCarthy and Willis Carto, that would clearly establish notability even though none of those individuals are reliable sources for anything other than their own opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he's been cited by the people you mentioned above that would support notability; but again there was no mention of this in the article. If it survived one AfD on the premise of notable subject with an article that doesn't currently meet notability criteria but can be improved to meet those criteria and then nothing is done to improve it, perhaps it is time to delete it until such time as somebody comes along who is willing to write it right. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an idea? Perhaps. For a biography? Color me dubious still. jps (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found mention of him in more than a few academic texts published by reputable places such as SUNY Press and the like. One of his books was also reviewed in The Atlantic, which would also be considered a RS. Now the thing about books being notable is that if someone's work has received coverage in reliable sources, that can translate into notability for the individual. In many cases it makes more sense to have one article for the individual rather than for each separate book, especially if the person's books predominantly cover one subject. It's far easier to have one article than many individual novels and it happens quite frequently. When it comes to establishing notability, what they write about is of little importance. What matters is coverage- which we have. (By this I don't mean that we shouldn't take care in what we write in the article or how we write it, just that when it comes to AfD purposes the guy could be writing about breeding racing snails. Him being into things that would make him a "weirdo" by many standards should not predispose people to assume that reliable sources do not exist.) I'm not even finished looking and I'm finding where he's used as a reference relatively often in this subject, sometimes by peers and sometimes in academic texts. ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] ) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 15 February 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. Obvious COI. As an aside, see the discussion currently ongoing about COI editing -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promwad[edit]

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

Please delete this spammy and non-neutral article for two reasons.

Reason 1:

WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

This article was created through undisclosed paid editing by Alexandra Goncharik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam).

If you'd like proof, please see <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.freelancer.is/projects/Article-Rewriting-Article-Submission/Replace-existing-WIKIPEDIA-page-maintain.html>. On this cached page from a freelancer marketplace, Ms. Goncharik wrote, in part:

"I have considerable experience in editing and submitting Wikipedia articles (5+ years), following its policies and guidelines. My proven track record consists of about 700 contributions, including creation of new articles about people, companies, their services and products. I really love doing this. My contributions log: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexandra_Goncharik (I can send you some examples of my articles in Wikipedia, if needed)."

Please see also Ms. Goncharik's freelancer profile.

Undisclosed paid editing is a cheap and sleazy thing to do. See also the two short cautionary tales at User:Durova/The dark side. Personally, I feel that even disclosed paid editing makes Wikipedia a worse place for the world to get information. Still, if you feel that you must do paid editing, then I request that you please not write new articles. Instead, get Wikipedians to write new articles for you. See WP:BPCOI.

Dear admins: Please delete this article per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION, which disallows the writing of promotional articles, and per WP:NOPAY.

Reason 2:

ISTM that this company fails WP:AUD, which says that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Well, the EE Times, for one, is almost surely a publication "of limited interest and circulation".

WP:42 says you need at least several mainstream sources, such as major newspapers. If you do find several such sources, please paste links below.

Dear admins: Please delete the article per WP:AUD.

Thanks for stopping by! —Unforgettableid (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This company is the largest independent electronics design house in Eastern Europe. It has coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources (not trivial or incidental). EE Times - Electronic Engineering Times (3 articles about Promwad) - is one of the most popular international media in electronics industry. It has 844 references in Wikipedia. Its local European edition was mentioned 577 times in Wikipedia. Some of Promwad's developments are unique or one of the first of their kind (see articles in C4ISR Journal and linuxdevices.com). According to Wikipedia:AUD, "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". So I believe the article complies with WP:AUD and WP:42. Also I has declared my professional connection to the subject of the article. Please see Talk:Promwad for more info. --Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 16:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not your article passes WP:AUD, it still should be deleted per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Re. your first point: Even if a trade magazine is the #1 magazine in the electronics-design industry, and even if it is distributed internationally, I believe it may still be considered a magazine "of limited interest and circulation". Re. your other point: You added a template which said you had "a personal or professional connection to the subject of the article" but nowhere did you actually say that you were paid cash to write it. —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

delete and salt. They can, and probably will, just buy another one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no substantial independant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 12:12, 20 February 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 is to keep D P 01:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bannister[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, who posted the following request at WT:AFD. No comment on the merits at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I question the notability of this biography/profile. Reasons include: - not notable beyond his piloting of the Concorde fleet; the pertinent information could easily exist in a more concise form on the Concorde entry - last two paragraphs (more than half of the article's length in words) reads as self-promotion and is unverifiable. tl;dr: not particularly notable & possibly self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.175.52 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being chief pilot of the Concorde fleet is notable, as it made him one of Britain's most senior airline pilots. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Concorde#Restoration/Concorde aircraft histories. Upon a search of the news archives, every mention of Bannister seems to be associated with the Concorde, most recently with efforts to restore the aircraft. There really isn't any notability independent of the Concorde. It should also be noted that there is apparently a major executive at Ford (Michael E. Bannister) who is frequently called "Mike Bannister" in the media. While we don't have an article on that guy yet, should one be created it's probable that this would become a dab page. As an aside, the pic of Bannister, File:Mike Bannister cropped.jpg, was cropped from File:Conc01.jpg, which was originally uploaded to Wikipedia as PD-self by now-retired PaddyBriggs; however, the same user admitted that he's in the original picture, which calls the copyright assertion into question. The images at Commons may need to be nominated for deletion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like rather weird logic to me. Every mention of Barack Obama is probably associated with the United States, since the only thing he's notable for is being president. Does that mean we should merge his article into that one? Obviously not. And I fail to see what difference the existence of another Mike Bannister makes to the existence of this page! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because WP:NPOL explicitly states that politicians who have held national offices are notable. Plus Obama was previously a prominent legal scholar, probably to the point of meeting WP:PROF. As to this gentleman, everything he's done that's notable in a Wikipedia sense has to do with the Concorde, and indeed, every mention of him in the press is in an article dealing primarily with the Concorde. Any mentions of him in those articles do not rise to the level of "significant coverage" in the WP:BIO sense. To use a more apt analogy, this is more like having an article about a company's official spokesperson because that person is quoted repeatedly in articles about the company. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am fully aware of WP:POLITICIAN. But the analogy is still an apt one. I do not agree that Obama would qualify on his legal background. He is notable simply as a United States politician. Take that away and he is not notable. But if you believe he would be notable as a lawyer, try someone else. Say, Norman Schwarzkopf. He is notable purely as an officer in the US Army. Take that away and he is not notable. Is there any reference to him that doesn't mention the fact he is (or was) a general? I very much doubt it. Most people are notable only in connection with a single thing. If they were not a member of a particular organisation, involved with a particular project or held a particular office then they would not be notable. Bannister is no different in this respect from Obama or Schwarzkopf. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're missing the point. Schwarzkopf has a substantial amount of material written not only about the military activities in which he has been a participant (as with the coverage in this article) but also about him as a person, whether as a general or as a private individual (no such coverage in this article). I call for a merger here precisely because Bannister is merely mentioned in coverage about other topics. If there is any coverage on him personally, I haven't found it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that I have nominated File:Mike Bannister cropped.jpg and File:Conc01.jpg for deletion at Commons. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Conc01.jpg. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Mendaliv. Bannister is not a public figure outside of "Concorde pilot". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bannister is the most experienced pilot of the very unique Concorde. He captained it's last flight. I believe that qualifies as a widely-recognized contribution to aviation, meeting WP:BIO Skrelk (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really agree with that. The "widely-recognized contribution" criterion for people is more one for situations where source material that demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG isn't readily available (usually where it's an ancient topic or the materials would be in languages other than English). It's one that's invoked where everyone in the industry or field mentions so-and-so for what he did, but none of that coverage seems to be in-depth or substantial to the point that you'd consider it suitable for GNG. And even if we presume notability is met here, that doesn't preclude merging or redirecting. That outcome is especially appropriate where two topics are intimately intertwined, as is the case here. If Bannister has notability, it's only for his piloting of the Concorde. So instead of having a short stub about him, talk about him at greater length in the article on the Concorde. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way did Banister contribute to aviation? Yes, he flew the last flight of a notable aircraft, but notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this person other than he happened to fly a notable airplane. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable person, see no compelling reason to delete. -- GreenC 04:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. How is he notable? What makes him notable? "No compelling reason to delete" is not an argument - you need to argue why this article should be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for his work as a pilot, obviously. And no I don't need to "argue", if I think he is notable I have a right to say so. Just as RoySmith immediately above has a right to say he isn't notable. -- GreenC 15:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a google search for "Mike Bannister". The first screen of results included, in order:

our own wikipedia article
a LinkedIn page listing a whole bunch of people by the same name
a blog thread on airliners.net
a youtube video
somebody else's twitter feed
somebody else's facebook page
somebody else's github page
another github page for the same person
what looks like our subject's personal web page
a page on a concorde web site (under fleet -> crew -> pilots, right next to the list of cabin crew)

That doesn't add up to notable to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping after the first Google page is a bad idea. Presumably someone already did that before nominating it for deletion. Do you think maybe there might be other sources than the first page of Google? I found lots of sources. Google Books for a start has dozens. But since this is a career that ended in 2003 we have to look in offline databases (Gale, NewsBanks, Ebsco, ProQuest), and sure enough there are tons of sources. This guy was the face of the Concord, he was often in the news, on CNN and ABC Nightly news, AP, Reuters, etc.. giving quotes and being the general all around expert on the plane. Further he played a significant role in the cleanup of the Concord crash. Here's just a couple but I don't have time to transcribe them all here. If you want ask for help from WP:REX.

The Money Gang (CNNfn). 11/07/2001. "Concorde Returns to the Skies". Guest: Captain Mike Bannister
Aviation Week & Space Technology. 11/12/2001, Vol. 155 Issue 20. "Speedbirds migrated back to New York airspace last week." Abstract: Contains information about Bannister's life and career.
Sunday Business (United Kingdom). 07/30/2000. "British Airways’ Chief Works to Handle Aftermath of Concorde Crash" Abstract: Details about Bannister's activities after the crash.
Associated Press "Concorde Gets Supersonic Test" 07/17/2001.

-- GreenC 19:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of above sources, plus:
- "Aircraft That Became a Celebration of the Skies", The News Letter (Belfast, Ireland), October 28, 2003, which includes a handful of biographical sentences on Bannister, just over my usual bar of "signficant coverage". Paywalled at: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-109317005.html
- "The Top Brass: And Now for Some Real `Blue Sky' Thinking ; the 10 Leading Pilots in Britain, as Chosen by Their Peers", The Independent (London, England), July 14, 2002, paywalled at: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1692704.html (Not a lot of coverage, but in essence, but a little career detail I haven't seen elsewhere and the selection is more or less an award).

There's more, but in any case, I believe there's enough coverage to write a short but useful and neutral article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Editors interested in improving the article are welcome and encouraged to contact me for help in retrieving the paywalled content if you don't have highbeam access. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kime bag[edit]

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

I initially PROD'd this as an unreferenced non-notable product. The original entries only links were to sites where you could purchase the item which remains more a gimick than anything else - google hits basically reflect this.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about a product with no supported claims of notability. Mere existence is not enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:38, 18 February 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 weak keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keir Thomas[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP of apparently non-notable person. Articles that the author has written don't count toward bio notability. Paviliolive (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Very weak keep based on new evidence Barely passes wp:A7 - not even close to the GNG. Also suspected wp:COI Neonchameleon (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC) update: Neonchameleon (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No obvious signs of notability on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Ehhh, I guess maybe it squeaks by. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wikipedia article on his poetry publication Puppywolf should probably be merged into this article for now. But Keir is notable per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. His work has been reviewed here and here for example. Articles by the author in major publications also adds to his notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep His books have a few reviews, some now added to article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep meets minimum GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE WP:AUTHOR applies here and would advise us to burn this. I think the sources on this are not significant coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Sure, he writes...but none of his works would meet WP:BKCRIT, he doesn't meet the basic two requirements of WP:ANYBIO or the four apposite points of WP:AUTHOR (he is not regarded as important or widely cited; is not known for introducing new concepts or theories; 3. is not the creator of well-know n works or been the subject of independent books, films, etc.; and 4. none of his works haven't won significant critical attention. The Linux award is incredibly minor and is no where near significant. Sorry, I don't see how this could even be a weak keep. ALSO...this article was started by User:Keir himself who is responsible for 80% of its content (100% before this AFD). Delete as a non-notable subject compromised by being the product of conflict of interest and self-promotion vanity editing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - authors of computer-related books tend to have more online reviews of their works than traditional sources (as in this case, about Linux systems). Bearian (talk) 21:51, 11 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 multi book reviews. -- GreenC 17:17, 15 February 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. SmartSE (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Shapiro (Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

does not seem to be sufficiently notable--discussing in sources seem to be rather passing references or brief coverage, not in-depth coverage. it's borderline in my judgment, so I'll leave it for AFD to discern. ColonelHenry (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another highly paid dude who has received only passing mentions, but not significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the creator of this page and would like to present the following defense of keeping this page: Lee is a very well respected executive in the healthcare and venture capital industries who has shown proven leadership amongst his peers in building and investing in businesses that are making a real difference in the areas of healthcare and education. He has been called upon by the Governor of Illinois to help reshape the future of the state with the Illinois Economic Recovery Commission, is a board member and respected voice for digedu, the Kellogg Innovation Network Advisory Board, Physicians Interactive and The Gastrointestinal Research Foundation through the University of Chicago. He has been involved in more than $4B worth of M&A activities while building the largest electronic health record vendor (Allscripts) in the world. This article has been updated with additional sources and citations, as well as his published work to better showcase significant coverage in reliable sources. Next Level Everything (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn still delete-worthy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement for individual who hasn't received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:11, 13 February 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 think there's enough consensus that the article at least shows a bit of notability. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 01:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul E. Burns[edit]

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

An actor with a lengthy career of bit parts doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable for WP:NACTOR ColonelHenry (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recognize that this article could certainly do with improvement. However he does have over 250 entries on IMDB, even if they are mostly in bit parts, there were 9 red links even before this article was created, including the WikiProject articles wanted, and he did have a significant part in Son of Paleface, a fairly well known film. PatGallacher (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Way too many uncredited parts. Son of Paleface seems to have been his peak, and I might consider this a semi-"major" role in a semi-notable film, but where are the others? Lots of quantity, but not much quality, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like red links, and Paul Burns accounted for seven. Wikfr (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the sheer number of films he was in indicates some kind of odd notability. I'd like some more sources. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 11 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IAR. I'm serious. There don't seem to be any sources beyond the one used in the article, but he's mentioned in cast lists over and over and over again. People will look him up, so we should have this article. I can't exactly articulate why... just, keep.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:32, 13 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of pornographic video-sharing websites[edit]

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

Apparently fails to meet WP:LISTN, also WP:NOTDIR. I first tagged this for notability in July 2013. Thanks to everyone for not removing the tag - however, apparently no one with an interest in the article is attempting to address the concerns either. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article Porn 2.0 is about a similar topic, so a merge there might be justified. The list contains by my reckoning 7 items with Wikipedia articles, which is at the fringes of too-short but I think shorter lists have survived. It would help if the AfD proposal explained how the article violates policies, rather than just listing policies (see WP:JUSTAPOLICY). --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the list of websites is dubious and not proven (LISTN), and it appears like a directory of potential sites (especially when considering the non-notable external links which were included). The nomination doesn't need to expand on that IMHO, and AFAICS was made in accordance with WP:DEL#REASON (which is policy). -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the individual sites seem to be notable, and they probably form a natural category, and Porn 2.0 includes links showing the subject might be notable as a whole. It wasn't clear whether you believed the topic of pornographic video-sharing websites was non-notable, whether you believed it wasn't a distinct category, whether the sites on the list are not notable, whether you objected to the format of the list (with weblinks), or whether you simply objected to the presence of non-notable sites on the list. If the non-notable external links are your main concern, they can be removed without deleting. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My thinking is that the a list topic may not be considered notable if it has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Non-notable items can be included, if independently/reliably sourced and external links aren't included within the list itself. But if the group of sites hasn't been discussed in sources then we shouldn't have a standalone list on said group. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The green links in the body of the list need to go, at a minimum — blatantly promotional in intent. Carrite (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be list of sites where copyrighted content can be illegally downloaded, thereby violating policy about COPYVIO links. If kept, all the links to sites without articles should be expunged. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have removed the entries without articles. Otherwise the list is a link farm with copyright issues noted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Erotica_and_pornography_websites. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a sensible suggestion, and would eliminate the linkspam. I realise that per WP:BEFORE, this could have been boldly done without initiating the discussion here, but I wasn't aware of that category, and a redirect can be a legitimate outcome of a deletion discussion. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Strikethrough, per DavidLeighEllis. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:12, 19 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Stuartyeates. The category has many of the same websites. An alternative might be to create a subcategory of pornographic video-sharing websites, but I'm not sure if there's any support/willingness to do the work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Stuartyeates and User:Colapeninsula--seems like a non notable, promotional list that would be best redirected.
Delete per nom. We don't redirect to categories from mainspace. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we don't. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Couldn't any video sharing site be used to share pornography?--Coin945 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technologically, yes; but some (e.g., YouTube) have policies against this, as do some countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia) in which they operate. ––Agyle (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia not being a web directory and no substantial improvement after being tagged for several months. The article Porn 2.0 discusses the same topic in an encyclopedic format and covers and compares several sites. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list, even if properly maintained, adds very little that isn't covered by Porn 2.0. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 22 February 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 The Dark Tower (series). Due to low participation over the long listing period this should be deemed to be an editorial action rather than a closure. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maerlyn's Rainbow[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of The Dark Tower (series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. While not notable as a standalone article, it is a important element within the series. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:35, 4 February 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^(talk) 09:33, 13 February 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shelving[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, is not (at least from this user's experience) accepted or widely-used anatomical terminology LT910001 (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 27 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge somewhere +/- leave redirect-- the term is occasionally used: [11], [12] ... but this is such a niche article that if it is indeed notable suggest merge to an appropriate anatomic parent article... Lesion (talk) 20:17, 6 February 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^(talk) 09:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two usages: one obscure jargon, the other unworthy of a redirect to inguinal ligament.Novangelis (talk) 19:15, 22 February 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. SmartSE (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gruber (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

The "awards" are trivial; the references are Press releases. I prodded an earlier version back in August & it was deleted, but this is no better. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Too soon. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DGG: Please put on your admin hat check the version that was deleted through PROD in August 2013 is different than the existing one and if so, WP:REFUND it temporarily so it can be examined for a possible merge/histmerge. If it's substantially identical or clearly doesn't contain any new information, no need for a refund, but I would appreciate you stating "it was the same" or "it was clearly inferior" or some such. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Please address this before it is too late. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:27, 19 February 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^(talk) 09:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). I agree with the nominator that the awards are trivial (fails WP:ANYBIO #1). Also the references seem to be mostly press releases, so it also fails WP:BASIC. - tucoxn\^talk 03:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete looking at the article he is really only known for one thing, that is starting s notable company. That in itself does not justify his own article. LibStar (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier history contains a several different versions.I have undeleted them all into the page history, Depending on what is done with this page, they can either stay or they will get re-deleted DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martine Lachance[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. I can't find any secondary sources remarking on her contribution to the field. All the sources on the page are by the subject or the institute she runs (except for the university's bio of her). Wieno (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Research Group on Animal Law. Wieno (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 5 February 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^(talk) 09:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claims of notability seem to be the unsourced assertion that she's one of the few experts on animal rights in Canada (dubious) and that she organized a conference (routine academic work) – ipso facto not notable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 14 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Carr[edit]

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

In accordance with this. And that the person is not notable. The sources link to a forum and it also reads like a CV.
Would also suggest locking page creation Lihaas (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the refs, promotional cv, first afd was very clear. Szzuk (talk) 22:48, 9 February 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^(talk) 09:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another WP:BLP sourced only with web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete There are no special guidelines for art curators and so the exhibition list can't really be used for notability (unlike the artists). So have to fall back to WP:GNG and not seeing it. -- GreenC 17:04, 15 February 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 The Ultimate Fighter: Team Jones vs. Team Sonnen. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Jamal Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Jones vs. Team Sonnen. Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, but I think a redirect is better than deleting.Mdtemp (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was eliminated pretty quick.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was the first one out. I still prefer the redirect but I'm OK with deleting the article--he certainly doesn't meet any notability standards.Mdtemp (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 5 February 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^(talk) 09:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect He clearly doesn't meet the criteria for his own article. Papaursa (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Jones vs. Team Sonnen. Contestants that do not win should be redirected as outlined in WP:OUTCOMES. Mkdw ^talk 07:02, 17 February 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, with a very distinct possibility of a merge to Keir Thomas. The discussion is leaning toward deletion, but the keep/possibly merge and merge !votes lead this to being closed as no consensus with a distinct merge possibility. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puppywolf[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reference listed is a primary source and is a redlink. I wasn't able to find much more.LM2000 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This apparently survived speedy deletion in 2011 because an IP posted some sources on the talk page. The ones that still work look like PR blurbs.LM2000 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Signigicant poetry publisher in Manchester. And if it weren't kept it should be Merged to its creator or to the article on its most notable publication. Deletion does not make sense. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:41, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Coverage is restricted to brief announcements and directory entries (e.g. Publishing North West). Founder/owner Keir Thomas isn't obviously notable either so a merge may be pointless. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Keir Thomas. I did some research on him, and he is probably notable as an author, since his books have reviews in the specialist press. But there's nothing substantial about his poetry press (which his article already mentions briefly). I stand by my earlier statement that this publishing company isn't notable, though there may be brief references to confirm some books it produced, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I AFD'd Keir Thomas too and it looks like he will be deleted. Comment there if you think he should stay. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE None of the press' works would meet WP:BKCRIT and as a company does not meet the guidelines of WP:CORP, ALSO...this article was started by User:Keir, the owner of Puppywolf, himself who is responsible for 100% of its preAFD content. Delete as a non-notable subject compromised by being the product of conflict of interest and self-promotion vanity editing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:56, 10 February 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^(talk) 09:16, 13 February 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) buff bills 7701 01:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas McCarthy[edit]

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

No assertation of individual notability, just the band he's in. No sources found, none in article. Redirection constantly undone by IPs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also couldn't turn up anything that would suggest notability for an individual. Paviliolive (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject's works apart from Nitzer Ebb appear to have received some attention, including solo, a "Fixmer /McCarthy" pairing, and a collaboration with Headman. These sources suggest that having an independent article on him is more optimal than outright deletion. Gong show 05:44, 1 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 February 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^(talk) 09:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Gongshow. It's marginal, but I agree that the subject's assorted other activities mean that a separate article will be more helpful to the reader than redirecting or deleting.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gongshow. There is enough non-Nitzer Ebb work and refs to make an independent article worthwhile. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 07:39, 19 February 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. NPASR. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murray McDavid[edit]

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

This is not a notable company. It has ceased trading, having sold up to ACEO which does not have a Wikipedia page. The name is no longer used for trading purposes. The on-line sources for Murray McDavid are not independent and are, generally, just reproductions of the Murray McDavid press releases. The only notable activity the company ever did was to acquire Bruichladdich distillery which is correctly cited on the Bruichladdich page H6PAYH (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable whiskey maker. Covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Notability does not expire because the line has been ceased. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Murray McDavid was not a producer of whisky. They were a company which bought other people's whisky and bottled it under their own label. They did buy Bruichladdich distillery which continues to operate having since been sold on but this is correctly referred to on the Bruichladdich page. Murray McDavid was a very minor bottler of whisky of no great note and which was essentially ephemeral. The company and its whisky stocks were sold on to another company which no longer uses the Murray McDavid brand names. The fact that the company was listed in directories and was a party in a court case (the sources mentioned above) do not qualify for notability.H6PAYH (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are splitting hairs as far as whether they produced whisky. Many wineries buy grapes from other wineries and sell them under their label. The notability is established by the very substantial coverage in reliable sources in cluding th book source I linked to which are not directories. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same as a winery. A winery buys grapes and makes wine with it. In the case of a whisky bottler, they buy whisky that has already been distilled, put in a cask and matured. All they do is buy the cask and bottle it. Murray McDavid did own a distillery for a while - that distillery continues and has its own wikipedia page as it should. The references you have pointed to do little more than show that Murray McDavid existed. The book source simply lists every company that existed at a given date that was involved in the whisky industry. Inclusion in that book is no more a measure of notability than inclusion in a telephone directory. Given that notability is not supposed to erode with time, we need to ask ourselves whether, in ten or twenty years' time, anyone will care that this company briefly traded. If the answer is yes then we might as well have pages dedicated to every small business that operates in my small town. Page for Lloyd The Mower Man anyone? H6PAYH (talk) 07:51, 29 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 4 February 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^(talk) 09:14, 13 February 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. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 15:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hildy Kuryk[edit]

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

Not entirely sure this person is really notable except as a political donor who married an Obama staffer. Editor creating this article has one edit here (to create) and about 20-25 edits on the BLP for her husband Jarrod Bernstein. Suspicion of potential conflict of interest. ColonelHenry (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your lvote is already implied by your nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Aside from Politico, she's gotten paragraphs in The Hollywood Reporter and New York magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 29 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The press coverage mentioned above merely mentions her career moves. No evidence of any notable achievements. 05:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep. I initially had my doubts, but after looking at the Politico article of Kuryk’s fundraising accomplishment of shattering political fundraising records at a national level, it would be safe to say that she’s notable. Serving as the communications director and Anna Wintour’s right hand person for an institution like Vogue is perhaps not as notable, but still a position of prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvingnet64 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 8 February 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^(talk) 09:14, 13 February 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. Article has been deleted due to blatant copyright violation. Cindy(talk) 17:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copano Energy LLC[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for companies, WP:CORP ColonelHenry (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 28 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Kinder Morgan Energy Partners. Otherwise I agree, no value of article. - Altenmann >t 05:31, 4 February 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^(talk) 09:13, 13 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navtej Singh (Body Builder)[edit]

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

Author-declined PROD. Non-notable bodybuilder. Sources available are either unreliable or not significant coverage. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navtej Singh is a renowned Body Builder in India although he does not have much of Media Coverage and online presence... You can read about his achievements from "World fitness federation & World body building federation" organisation's website http://www.wff.lt/news/1608/ .. There are Six urls i have provided which shows details about him.. As a fitness enthusiast i follow him personally and saw him in various Public appearances.. In India there are many noted personalities who don't have strong online presence.. —/User:Sayan801 —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't need to be online. Are there print sources?204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 February 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^(talk) 08:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable coverage and has not participated in any major competitions. --JamesMoose (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have a real impressive resume, but I'm no expert on bodybuilding. However, I am concerned about the lack of sources. Right now I'd say he doesn't meet WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 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. SmartSE (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond poverty[edit]

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

Per WP:ORG. I didn't check the sources since none of them are cited in a way that argues Beyond Poverty's notability. If that can be established, then WP:STARTOVER applies to the article as written, given its promotional tone. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 January 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, Randykitty (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

House! I've just filled one of my buzzword bingo cards looking at that page! The author is a wp:SPA who appears to have a wp:COI. So delete or wp:TNT Neonchameleon (talk) 00:52, 5 February 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^(talk) 08:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find summaries or the full source of a few of the references, and from what I saw they mostly discuss methodology and different approaches on how to fight poverty. Delete unless anyone can find sources that passes WP:GNG. Bjelleklang - talk 17:43, 20 February 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Fuller[edit]

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

delete per WP:NGRIDIRON does not meet notability requirements. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:GNG is notable at this time. Canadalovesnd 23:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This player has not met that threshold yet, when I reviewed [[13]] I did not see the awards listed that would have given him notability as an amateur athlete in college. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG does not require achievment of any awards. It is based on coverage in the media in general.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wasn't expecting to find the coverage that I actually found in the news. A simple web search returns many articles in the news from third party reliable sources about his college football playing. That, in my opinion, is more than enough to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:50, 28 January 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, Randykitty (talk) 20:37, 4 February 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^(talk) 08:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Coverage is just the usual sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Washington Post and NBC Sports articles are considerably more than just the "usual reporting" in my opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the second one is doing is reporting an injury. Players get injured all the time. That shouldn't be used to establish notability.--Yankees10 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, players do get injured all the time. Not every player gets coverage for their injury--certainly not in a feature article such as that one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a great amount of sources, but he is a potential first round draft pick in upcoming draft. That alone makes him notable.--Yankees10 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So could I. Until that happens you don't have that notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many paths to notability. See WP:ABELINCOLN for a discussion on that if you like.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 21 February 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.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanne & Co[edit]

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

Not notable. Reported cases should probably be credited to the relevant Barristers not to the instructing firm of Solicitors. Article is basically an advert. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:AGF. Older firms (those more than 100 years old) usually pass my standards for law firms. I'd like more information and to see more reliable sources with significant coverage before I could be certain of general notability. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 30 January 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 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^(talk) 08:52, 13 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shammal Qureshi[edit]

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

Franchisee of Toni& Guy in North Pakistan. Refs prove that he exists but very little more. Should we list all franchisees of all such business ? - I think not . Not in any sense notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 January 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's certainly attracted some attention and from what I can see, seems to have some notability in Pakistan. I was dithering over sources such as an article in what seems to be a relatively major Pakistani online fashion magazine, an interview from the Express Tribune, reposted on a Pakistani news webzine; a slightly (but typically) gushy, press-releasey thing which still explained what he's done for Toni & Guy and why he's drawing attention., and then I came across this multi-page spread on Qureshi - pages 10 to 16- pretty significant coverage, and with all the other stuff, I think it comes together to demonstrate sufficient general notability. Then I found that he's also included on a Pakistani Power 100 list here - although I can't find his individual bio among those included in the PDF file, it's still worth noting that he made the list. Also, despite the FUBAR News Archive search, he still has a more-than-passing appearance in this recent news article for the International New York Times - It does seem he is a key player in his field. So yes, based on what I found while searching, I feel he is worth keeping. Mabalu (talk) 12:32, 5 February 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^(talk) 08:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From looking around the articles pressented above I must say he does have notability in Pakistan. The article itself is not badly wroten even if some more reffs could be added just to explain better who this person is for us who are not home when it comes to Pakistani hairdressers.Stepojevac (talk) 19:24, 15 February 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). (non-admin closure) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehurst Family Farm and Motor Museum[edit]

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

wp:N Dan653 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!! - I don't see why the stub should be deleted it is mentioned on many pages although does not have its own although it does need some more detail that is why it is marked as a stub! Dtbwlr99 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 28 January 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 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^(talk) 08:51, 13 February 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 HIM discography. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uneasy Listening Vol. 1 & 2[edit]

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

Not suitable for merging. I have proposed the articles for the albums it comprises be merged with a note that this combined release occurred, but other than that there is nothing on this article that cannot be said on either of the other two articles or (assuming my merge proposal will pass) the article on both albums. Even a redirect seems silly. Per this discussion wherein the band's first three studio albums were bundled together and released in a set that previously had its own article which was deleted. Lazy Bastard Guy 17:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 January 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 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^(talk) 08:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to HIM discography. Insignificant coverage in reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 04:24, 17 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Parkin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. In my WP:BEFORE search, only social media accounts cam up other than his official biography on the radio station website. Most of the article's external links are dead as well. Despite the amount of content in his article, it doesn't really establish notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 January 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:24, 4 February 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^(talk) 08:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Little if any coverage found online independent of the subject. Levdr1lp / talk 19:02, 13 February 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 Disney Channel (international)#Middle East, North Africa and Pakistan. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Middle East[edit]

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

Only one source, written in a childish way, promotional, original research, nothing but just pure fancruft. Finealt (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possibly stubbify). It exists and I'm pretty sure I can assume that it's notable because it's an international Disney channel (other regions have pages). It's just a mess of a page but not bad enough to delete. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney Channel (international)#Middle East, North Africa and Pakistan I'm highly suspect that 75% of the article is the usual children's network cruft that is likely not true (and really not needed; I really doubt that DCME has Easter and Christmas event schedules in the Muslim world), and the network as-is originates no local content. This is a common strategy with international children's networks which just air US and UK-originated content. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 5 February 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^(talk) 08:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DC (international). — Wylie pedia 17:03, 20 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wajyutsu Keisyukai[edit]

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

Gym with no significant independent coverage so fails WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment This is a network rather than a single gym and several individual clubs within the network have their own articles.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about it being a network. However, the fact that some of the gyms have articles falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In addition, based on the links in this article the other gym's "articles" are just redirects to their respective founders. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no significant independent coverage of this network of gyms--just passing mentions, its web page, and a blog. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 3 February 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 5 February 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^(talk) 08:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The number of notable fighters is impressive. I partly wonder that my WP:BEFORE results are failing because of the romanization of the Japanese name. If we knew the actual Japanese name it may show more results. That being said, the official website does not appear to work, or access is forbidden because it's a dubious link which prevents any further research. As such I cannot provide any WP:SIGCOV and the WP:BURDEN cannot be relieved. Mkdw ^talk 06:51, 17 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Tipton[edit]

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

Non-Notable Performer TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 January 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Our First Time or Delete. Basically a WP:BLP1E case. He got a lot of press coverage for ourfirsttime.com, but that's about it. As far as I can tell, he does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Merge to Heart of the Beholder, which is after all about him. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you should say that it's an obvious merge. I felt the same way about his hoax website. That got much more publicity than an obscure autobiographical film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:44, 5 February 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^(talk) 08:38, 13 February 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). (non-admin closure) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CN-E 85mm T1.3 L F[edit]

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

Should have been speedy-deleted like all the other CN-E lens articles that were created by one user who either lifted or closely paraphrased from retail sites, but for some reason this one was saved because it wasn't "unambiguous". This is advertising, and not encyclopaedic, and too close to the source material for comfort. Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:PARAPHRASE. ColonelHenry (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm the user that made the page. As I said on your talk page, I didn't copy and paste. This isn't advertising (again, as I said on your talk page), I linked directly to the manufacturer in the references, and furthermore the red link to this lens' page had been there for a long time (I know because I was researching this lens almost a year ago). If this lens does not deserve an encyclopedia page, then that is fine, but many other lenses have their own page or have group pages. You are kinda back tracking now by saying "closely paraphrased" instead of copied but I followed the same pattern as the rest of the lens articles I found. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_50mm_lens#EF_50mm_f.2F1.2L_USM for the exact lens I was lifting off. At this point I don't even care. I didn't sign up to defend a page about a canon lens. So if you want to delete it that is fine with me, but then at least delete the links pointing to it, because otherwise this information will just be reposted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachaysan (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your red links on this page were deleted for copyright infringement/paraphrasing. This article is no different. Stop spamming.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you ignore what I've said. Something I've said MULTIPLE times. The red links were from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Cinema_EOS#Full_35_mm_2 so stop attacking me personally. I'm not spamming. I'm not claiming the red links that go to other pages I made. Like I said before on your user talk page where you invited me to discuss this, I just made these pages due to seeing that they were red on the Canon Cinema page. Stop mischaracterizing what I've done. At this point it seems you are intentionally distorting the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachaysan (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this page is not an orphan, even though you tagged it as such. Please see the (what are or would be) red links I pointed out on Canon Cinema EOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachaysan (talk • contribs) 21:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. (i) At least in its current state, this doesn't look like advertising to me. (ii) The information that it supplies, if verifiable, is arguably encyclopedic. (After all, this encyclopedia does contain articles on one-off car prototypes, multiple ingredients of fictional "universes", etc.) (iii) In general, there's not much enthusiasm in WP for adding articles (even if well sourced) on individual consumer durables. Unless these are durables with large fanbases among young male North Americans. (iv) Camera-wiki.org actually welcomes articles on subjects such as this. (v) Jeebus that's a ridiculously (unless you're accustomed to Leica) expensive lens. (Suggestion: get a Sony α7 [or similar; I imagine that cameras such as this are about to emerge from other companies], an old Canon FD 85/1.2 in decent nick [cosmetics, internal dust, and even slight scratching on the front element won't matter], and an adapter to mate the two; and take a vacation for yourself and somebody with all the money you'll save.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 29 January 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 5 February 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^(talk) 08:37, 13 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Anthony (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON as he hasn't played at a professional level. Fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NCOLLATH. Hack (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I see nothing in his college career to surpass WP:GNG and can find no other measure at this time to surpass notability standards.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 2 February 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of his high school, college and professional career. Sources include [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1 and 5 are reprints of the same article, and some of those look like blogs and not necessarily third party reliable sources... but it's enough for me to switch to ~~Neutral~~ for now and investigate further.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete I've completed my review and it looks to me like the only articles from third party reliable sources are local paper (albiet Baltimore Sun) in basic sports transactions blog-type articles. I'd call it borderline at this time, but with no other real support I've decided to return to my original position. If anyone wants to Userfy the article and take custody, I'm fine with that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, Candlebracadabra sources are trivial coverage given to all prospects. Secret ^account 23:56, 6 February 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^(talk) 08:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Not all football players are notable. I don't think that not playing in the majors would be considered notable but again not every football players are notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:14, 21 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voniesh Soukhee[edit]

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

Non-notable model, does not pass WP:NMODEL Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:TOOSOON after removing all the user generated and self generated promotional sites, there is nothing left but an IMDB entry that with its atrocious grammar appears to be simply user generated as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 6 February 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^(talk) 08:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I was unable to find additional, reliable, secondary sources which would have established this model's notability under any of WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:NMODEL. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:20, 23 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Snow (attorney)[edit]

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

This attorney who was chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for a short period does not pass the requirements of WP:GNG. Even the best source given in the article, this CNET article, is unable to spend more than two sentences on him. Google Web, News and Books searches do not produce any coverage of this man that passes the standards set at WP:BASIC.

Note that he is not to be confused with the attorney Michael Snow at Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP in Minneapolis, who has had some press coverage in relation to making large political donations. — Scott • talk 16:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 February 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^(talk) 08:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the chair of the board of Wikimedia foundation does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:37, 20 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pitylak[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, other not notable promotional content has been reinserted about Unique Influence Jppcap (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no difficulty finding multiple WP:RS sources on this guy on the first two pages of hits from a Google search. His background may be unsavory, but it clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. And I am just not seeing this as a promotional article. Reference to his current doings would seem reasonable in a BLP. And that reference is pretty matter of fact to my reading. I have occasionally been accused of being too quick to pull the trigger on suspected SPAM articles. But this just doesn't look like a promo article to me. It's short and to the point, just the facts thank you very much. And as already mentioned the subject is clearly notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the Associated Press calls a person "One of the world's most notorious spammers" and other reliable sources describe him in similar terms, that amounts to notability. A multi-year spam campaign is not "one event". There is nothing promotional about the current version of the article, and if anything promotional is added, it can be corrected by normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 February 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 that the article was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 14:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Friendship Movie Stars[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 06:34, 13 February 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 that the article was speedily deleted by User:Kudpung under criteria A7 and G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 14:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ynorme[edit]

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

This article is on a small company that is not notable. The article appears to be written like an advertisement, often use the words "our" and "we" to refer to the company. The author has removed previous speedy deletion templates and a regular deletion template. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 05:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the author has removed some of the advert-sounding promotional sentences. I still believe that the article qualifies for deletion. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 06:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted already per A7 & G11. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 13 February 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Huard[edit]

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

Non-notable personality fails WP:N; subject requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Sources provided in article do not meet WP:GNG, and others aren't present in Google News. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect. I used to watch Screen Savers. Loved that show and DH, just not here. — Wylie pedia 16:44, 20 February 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. There seems to be strong arguments that this meets WP:EVENT, with specific evidence provided for many of the predicates of that criteria. The article title issues raised are signficant, and this closure in no way precludes continuing discussion of the title at the article talk page. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexian Lien beating[edit]

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

A road rage incident, one of millions every year, with no lasting impact, reported widely at the time but no clear demonstration of notability, this is, after all, not a newspaper. Could/should be redirected to Gloria Allred for a minor mention. (cf. New Jersey Turnpike smog accident which redirects to New Jersey Turnpike, this accident involved 66 vehicles, cause 9 deaths and 39 injuries, but is covered in a couple of sentences). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into ~~Draft:Motorcycle hooliganism~~ Motorcycle hooliganism per WP:VICTIM, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." I've had this article on the back burner for a while, collecting sources on the alternate motorcycling anti-social culture to outlaw motorcycle clubs. Recently Brianhe (talk · contribs) has been helping to get the article ready. After the Alexian Lien incident, several major media wrote profiles of the new(ish) hooligan biker subculture. Anyone who thinks the article is ready can move it to the main space, or make some adjustments to get it ready. The fact that Lien is a crime victim who didn't seek notoriety suggests that he should not have an article with his name in the title, per WP:BLP1E. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Motorcycle hooliganism is now live and merging into it solves the objections several editors raise below. By placing the event in the context of the ongoing pattern of similar incidents over a period of time, the description of the Hollywwood Stuntz/Alex Lien incident becomes more encyclopedic, and avoids several BLP issues. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The movie "Mad Max" essentially unfolded in real life on the streets of NYC — about the closest thing we Americans have to an authoritarian police state. A man beaten bloody, stomped as he lay helpless on the ground, in front of his horrified wife and infant daughter, who were themselves nearly beaten. A man nearly committing vehicular homicide in self-defense. An innocent bystander risking his life to save the husband, wife, and daughter from further attack. Undercover cops part of the gang, along for the ride, apparently participating in the assault. The whole thing captured on terrifying video taken by one of the riders.

"Reported widely at the time" is quite the understatement, and I've got to say, I wonder whether the editor comparing this to a fog-induced traffic accident has his head screwed on properly.

It is also unclear what is meant by the contention that there is "no clear demonstration of notability". What would suffice, in this editor's mind? The guidelines for gauging the notability of an event suggest that notability may be established where news coverage of it is not merely "routine", but provides "critical analysis of the event". That bar has already been met repeatedly given the coverage that's out there.

Drilling down to the specific guideline page for events, we see even more clear support for this article's inclusion: "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". Actually at the end of the day I don't see any support for deletion anywhere in the cited policies...

Going by the core logic presented here by those proposing or supporting deletion, we shouldn't have an article on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, simply because we already have articles on school shooting and mass murder.

Also, it should be obvious that this article does not necessarily need to have the crime victim's name as part of its title. Nor need the article be about Lien, rather than about the beating. Those are some very simple objections to address, no? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I wonder whether the editor comparing this to a fog-induced traffic accident has his head screwed on properly."? How rude. This article demonstrates what WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is all about. Can you demonstrate any WP:PERSISTENCE from this event? What long-term impact on the universe took place as a result of this commonplace road rage incident? How many road rage incidents take place in the US every year? Millions? As for the emotive " A man beaten bloody, stomped as he lay helpless on the ground, in front of his horrified wife and infant daughter, who were themselves nearly beaten. A man nearly committing vehicular homicide in self-defense. An innocent bystander risking his life to save the husband, wife, and daughter from further attack.", how many common assaults match this pattern? This is "just another crime" I'm afraid. Unless you can demonstrate persistence and that something actually happened as a result of the crime, rather than just a lame court outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Commonplace road rage incident"? I am sorry for your feelings, but that is just silly. There was absolutely nothing commonplace about this unprovoked gang assault in broad daylight. I defy you to find any incident even remotely similar, anywhere in U.S. history. Oh, and then make a convincing case for it being just an everyday "road rage" incident that doesn't merit any WP attention.

Please take this discussion seriously.

That said, could you please briefly describe why you think the very extensive news coverage described above is somehow of insufficient duration? I note that the coverage continues even today — as in today, February 7th, over four months later. A Google News search will reveal a steady stream of news pieces, not as many today as there were immediately following the incident, but it is still getting significant coverage even now.

To recap: there is simply no sensible or reasonable argument to be made that this was a "commonplace" incident, and it's debatable whether it could be fairly classified along with other "road rage" incidents. This was a high-profile criminal act and the notability bar is easily met. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User Factcheckers reasoning basically covers all as to why this article should not be deleted. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately violent incidents like this is routine and not at all remarkable in our society. That said, the sensationalist tone of the article and of one of the comments above me does not help make the case for this article, which appears to be written entirely by advocates for Lien. Independent coverage is all routine and there's not much to indicate that this is a "high profile" criminal act, and we're not the crimes section of a newspaper. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, Tone and content issues are easily corrected. Nor is it unusual for WP articles to be written entirely, or nearly so, by highly enthusiastic advocates for a particular subject (or one side of a particular debate). Rather, this seems to be the norm, with opposing viewpoints filtering through in a sort of "cleanup" process that generally involves substantial Talk page debate. Aside from the general need for better sourcing, the primary concern here should be for BLP violations, but I think there is a rather well-developed capacity for WP to deal with those.

I have corrected tone and "sensationalism" issues as well as the neutrality of the article.Bali88 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, I don't think any fair case can be made that this was not a "high profile" act.

Weekly and sometimes daily news coverage persisted for over two months after the incident, especially as the scandal involving undercover police officers continued to unfold. Numerous television news programs had "panel of experts" segments to discuss this specific incident, how it could have occurred, how it relates to ongoing trends among motorcycle "clubs" of various forms (i.e. whether the group involved in this case should be considered a "gang"), and what law enforcement could do to prevent similar incidents going forward. A Bronx politician had to fire one of her staffers over a related media uproar. The new Mayor of NYC specifically discussed this incident at press stops while he was campaigning. Gloria Allred did not get involved in this case because it was going to keep her name out of the papers... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this incident garnered international news coverage for weeks, not a day or two; its backlash against the police may have helped elect new leadership in New York City. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT, especially in the absence of evidence of WP:LASTING significance. WP:GEOSCOPE as well; despite a couple of mentions from across the pond, this is mostly local New York City news, with no "demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group." --BDD (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The event is four months old. WP:LASTING does not tell us that articles about recent events must be deleted until there has been time for a lasting significance to come into focus.

Just the opposite actually: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."

And it is quite obviously national US news. Paucity of mentions in England does not make it "local New York City news".

A few minutes of Googling yields a sample of non-NY news outlets that have dealt with this story:

Major newspapers:

New York Times, Washington times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN, Chicago Sun-Times, Denver Post, Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, Tampa Bay Times

National websites: Huffington Post, Slate, Epoch Times, Asian American News, Dealbreaker

Non-US news outlets: Various Chinese sites I can't read, The Mercury Australia, Viet Times Australia, Daily Mail, National Examiner (UK), La Jaya (Dominican Republic), International business times

As well as local news coverage in numerous states (I'd guess at least one in each U.S. state). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:EVENT. This is just your basic traffic accident which got ugly. Wikipedia is not the police blotter. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my previous comment, this happened 4 months ago, and had a splash in the tabloids and TV news. It's sensational. It makes good infotainment. But that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Come back in a year and see how history has judged this event. If it's still getting press in a year, then it's notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is shown to be false by the wide coverage in major media outlets. Seems like you are stretching the truth quite liberally to make this sound like a non-event. Ditto for the guy calling it a "basic traffic accident which got ugly". We could say Sandy Hook was a "basic bullying incident which got ugly", right? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this one for a while. While I grudgingly admit that it has gotten a lot of news coverage (CBS News even called it one of the top news stories of 2013 [19], which says more about CBS News than it does about the event), I cite this from WP:EVENTCRIT:

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, ...) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

I'm trying to figure out what the "enduring significance" is. Tragic, yes. Widely reported, yes. Enduringly significant? I don't think so. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way that I look at it...it's not like we're discussing what to include in a set of printed encyclopedias. Wikipedia evolves. There is no super reliable way to decide what will have enduring significance. If the topic becomes less significant in the next couple years, we can always delete it if it becomes irrelevant. IMO the fact that lots of people want to talk/read about a topic makes it notable. I personally think some law changes will take place as a result of the case, but of course, we shall see. I don't think there is a compelling reason to delete it if lots of people want to read about it.Bali88 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Obviously only time will tell how big and how lasting a story this remains. As time goes on, it would IMO be desirable to include this incident in a section of the WP article for whatever police force the bad actor(s) belonged to. See for example the rogue officers section at the bottom of the California Highway Patrol article; and each incident could have several lines, not just a line. I mean IN ADDITION to this article, not to replace it--UNLESS in the improbable event it loses its cachet over time. Paavo273 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 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, slakr^\ talk / 04:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Terrible title. Someone needs to work on that. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At LEAST this is the kind of subject that needs a crapload of redirects or a ton of people looking for it will never find it. If possible several redirects that don't rely on the name of the beaten. 'Cuz over time, the name will probably become less and less prominent on Google. Paavo273 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am usually on the delete side of the fence with True Crime/Tragic Event type stories, but this one got big, big, big media play and is going to be a point of reference whenever motorcycle riders and car drivers come to blows. The magnitude of the coverage propels this to Keep status, I feel. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I think this topic definitely meets notability requirements but obviously needs a complete rewrite for a number of reasons. I think the title should be changed to something more neutral and descriptive. The "beating" was only one small facet of a much longer incident. I'm coming up blank in terms of names but perhaps something like "Hollywood Stuntz Range rover incident". If anyone has any ideas, let me know. I have an interest in this topic and I think I can bring it up to code. I'll work on it tonight a little and I think I can probably have it finished by the weekend. Bali88 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have updated the article to include proposed legislation that this crime has inspired as well as Lien's lawsuit against the city of New York.Bali88 (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This story has a myriad of social issues that were brought forth in a massive public debate. This discussion seems almost entirely one-sided in demonstrating that this article should remain. I have no idea why its even still up for deletion. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the story was international news and national front page news for days, involved undercover police in the mayhem, attracted the attention of a nationally renowned lawyer, involves an ongoing lawsuit against New York city, and gts well over 100 hits a day on average from our readers. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, what is your opinion on the name of the article? I think it should probably be changed for a few reasons. Bali88 (talk) 03:34, 24 February 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. My gut feeling is this really isn't notable, but the consensus among the editors who participated is clearly keep, so keep it is. And, I agree that another relist would be pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Disability Employment Network[edit]

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

less than notable organization; special-purpose charitable agencies of this sort with only provinical scope are not assumed to be notable. The one good reference (the globe & Mail) is only incidentally about the organization. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More examples of this organization are available including: http://axiomnews.ca/node/2157 http://readywillingable.ca/programs/ontario-disability-employment-network-champions-league/ http://openparliament.ca/committees/human-resources/41-1/71/joseph-dale-1/ http://www.police.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Newsroom/2012458.htm http://www.accessibilitynews.ca/ontario-disability-employment-network-press-release/ http://fieldgatehomesblog.com/2012/08/01/fieldgate-supports-programs-for-students-with-disabilities/ http://www.city.sarnia.on.ca/city-government/mayor/about-the-mayor/print http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9m0zrQlUjk</ref> This is a real organization - it exists and continues to work with various community agenices across Ontario. Among other things, they work with others to ensure people are given credit for their work re: employment issues surrounding people who have a disability - which is why there are less articles about them and more about the people they work with. There is no misleading information in the article. madair11 —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — madair11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I am a HCP in Ontario Canada and have never heard of this organization. In addition its lack of notability means it should go Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Ontario Disability Employment Network has had a huge impact improving employment opportunities for people with a disability across Ontario. So much so that two of its directors, Joe Dale and Bob Vansickle were recently awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal for significant achievements by the Governor General of Canada. http://www.communitylivingontario.ca/news-events/news/queens-diamond-jubilee-medal-recipient-humbled

http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/3506249-whitby-rotarians-awarded-queen-s-diamond-jubilee-medal/GoSpaceRace (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)— GoSpaceRace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Health Care and Employment are separate lines of work. Assumption that Health Care Providers in Ontario have heard of every organization is not a strong argument. madair11 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)— madair11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the notability by including the information about the medal - as referred to by GoSpaceRace above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; as one paragraph stub describing just the organization, it is fine. However I disagree with Dodger67, and believe the list of "Champion's League" winners inappropriately dominates the article. I believe the focus must be on the actions of the ODEN, rather than the award recipients. I have trimmed the article to remove the award recipients. (opinion edited) --Zfish118 (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Zfish118 I was referring to the news sources about the directors of the org being awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal - as linked by GoSpaceRace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Roger (Dodger67), My appologies for misunderstanding which award you were referring to. However, I addressed the Jubilee Medal on the talk page already. The sources say that, the directors received the Jubilee Medal award for their work in the Rotary Club, not necessarily the ODEN. It thus doesn't improve the notability of ODEN. For this article, I would like to see more about what the organization does. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 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, slakr^\ talk / 03:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with 4 Keep and only 1 Delete the consensus is already clear - endless relisting isn't likely to change it and may be interpreted as a bad faith act. It's time to close this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - there are only three users who voted "keep", and my "keep" vote is quite weak actually, as very little encyclopedic information seems to be available. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pasban Khatme Nabuwwat[edit]

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

Deprodded without any explanation. No evidence of this organization satisfying WP:ORG or WP:GNG in the article, or in a Google Search; it's a borderline A7. The article also has some extremely questionable claims as well, as it makes reference to it being a violent organization without a shred of evidence. Tagged as non-notable since August 2013, unreferenced since August 2009, until the IP removed those tags as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization does exist, as I found a single source published by Scarecrow Press - the Historical Dictionary of Islamic Fundamentalism. It is literally a dictionary of almost every extremist Muslim group in history; this group has one small paragraph along with hundreds of others. Unless we can agree that all 500 or whatever groups in that book are notable, this should be deleted as that is literally the only proof I can even find that the subject is actually real. No news or published info about activity, members, notoriety, etc. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 12 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 13 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cause célèbre (disambiguation)[edit]

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

An unnecessary dab page, seeing as there are only two legitimate entries: the primary topic and the play. The third entry is only a partial match. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deletion, although I think it would be harmless to keep. bd2412 T 02:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page should be converted to a hatnote at Cause célèbre. At the top of the page, it should read "For the play, see Cause Célèbre (play). Not to be confused with Cause Celeb." Or something along those lines. Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G6.--Laun chba ller 21:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSD:G6 doesn't apply; there are three entries there, because "cause celebre" itself counts as one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cause Celeb doesn't. That's two.--Laun chba ller 21:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of partial matches not counting. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PTM says so. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given how similarly they can be pronounced, "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title.", which I presume is what people are referencing, seems to be satisfied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not aware of any issue with including partial matches in the count. WP:ITSUSEFUL may be valid for DAB pages. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, for many cause celeb and cause célèbre are pronounced identically and can be easily confused for those unfamiliar with the weirdness pertaining to French phrases adopted into English. However, a hatnote with both uses could also work, though if deleted, the article should also include a link to wiktionary as well. older ≠ wiser 02:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe that disambiguation pages are supposed to go somewhere else for review, are they not? Carrite (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used to think that, but apparently not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the above query is wrong. Legitimate dab. Carrite (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 entries, including the valid see also. Nothing to be gained by deletion, currently it's WP:USEFUL. Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 14 February 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claymore Disco[edit]

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

Q: What have they done as a band to justify an encyclopedia article?

A: Absolutely nothing.

Among the many other things that Wikipedia is not, it isn't a directory of unsigned local bands. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon; coverage/awards/radio shows to date to not meet WP:BAND. Gong show 04:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close. Please don't come back until there is non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lutfi Haziri[edit]

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

unsourced BLP The Banner talk 00:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course a deputy prime minister is notable. His rank is easily confirmed by a quick Google search. WP:BEFORE and WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable political figure. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Google searches show multiple English-language reliable sources available. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 14 February 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 Withdrawn by nominator - diff 1 and diff 2. Giant Snowman 13:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of women's football clubs in Turkey[edit]

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

~~listcruft and original research~~ JMHamo (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator JMHamo (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated without a specific rationale. What about the eight lists in the Category:Lists of women's association football clubs? --CeeGee 08:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does there have to be a separate article with an unverifiable list of clubs, can't the individual club articles use Category:Women's football clubs in Turkey? (which they are probably already using) JMHamo (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have plenty of articles, see List of association football clubs - this needs improving, not deleting. TFF website is normally good and can be used as a source, also try RSSSF and Soccerway. Giant Snowman 13:15, 13 February 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.