Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 July	24 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simplemente María (2014 telenovela)[edit]

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

Realizing this just came out of AfD. Lets try again and hope for some participation this time. Same reason as the first AfD, pretty much a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL and no indication of notability. Safiel (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As before, soap is not yet fully confirmed. It is speculative.--Damián (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We should not promote the making of articles on "upcoming" serials etc. This is using WP for advertisement. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:41, 30 July 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 a7 (for the second time), no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chobert[edit]

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

Speedy deletion tag removed by User:The 5th Doctor. There's no indication of notability here, and the only source is wordpress, which is not a reliable source. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Pepsi Cola and Harrods have articles, it is unfair to discriminate smaller businesses and the little info that stands on the page is encyclopedic in nature and not aimed to promote; it just said that the owner was young at the time. The 5th Doctor (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just because articles about other companies exist does not mean that articles about all companies that exist belong on Wikipedia. GB fan 01:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - please keep, i think it should be keeped, its not a promotion abou an special store or product. its just about historical information about that.Hamadbenali— Hamadbenali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy delete per CSD A7. No notability here whatsoever as the article stands. --Finngall ^talk 23:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell this is just a single store. Antrocent (♫♬) 23:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPANY. Zero media coverage. The only way this gets to stay is if it shows up repeatedly on Dilbert. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. —teb728 t c 03:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the above. Thanks, Matty.007 07:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that's really placed new light on the discussion. The 5th Doctor (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : i think its a notable article, its just about the history of a brand, and it he is not promoting himself, please keep the article when all other same business have the same article.Hamadbenali— Hamadbenali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Delete, or even speedy delete (WP:CSD#A7). Nothing in the article or in a web search shows anything remotely close to the level of notability needed to meet WP:CORP. Peacock (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is probably worth noting for the closing admin that there is an admitted conflict of interest (paid editing) revealed on the talk page and the article itself had to be semi-protected due to repeated disruption by multiple apparent socks. Peacock (talk) 16:35, 24 July 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiusz Prusak[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the cited reference, he plays in Górnik Łęczna which is an Ekstraklasa club. As such I'm inclined to keep. Brandmeister^talk 22:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is signed to an Ekstraklasa club, but he has not actually played for them, which is what is required to meet WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received coverage in reliable sources;
- Rozmawiał Bartosz Surman. Sergiusz Prusak: 'Będę wspominał awans do końca życia'". Gazeta.pl, 27 May 2014.
- Jacek Brzuszkiewicz and Bartosz Surman."Szeregowiec Prusak awansował. 'Skończyły się żarty na treningu'". Sport.pl, 6 June 2014.
- "Sergiusz Prusak: W Łęcznej czuć zapach ekstraklasy". Polish Radio Lublin, 28 November 2013.
- Michał Beczek. "Sergiusz Prusak (Górnik Łęczna): Chcemy zmazać plamę". Dziennik Wschodni, 24 April 2014.

And will meet WP:NSPORT sometime soon. Antrocent (♫♬) 23:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm inclined to agree he meets WP:GNG. The fact he might meet WP:NFOOTBALL in the future is wholly irrelevant, see WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 11:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources above show relatively in depth interviews specifically with the player in a number of different media outlets. Happy to accept that this player meets GNG, and as such NFOOTY concerns are irrelevant. Fenix down (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 26 July 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 a11, made up by article creator. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hollyoaks Twelve Days of Christmas[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, no references looks like pure speculation. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Rankings of Last 1 Year (With Highest and Lowest 1993-2014)[edit]

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

It is quite useless to have article on the FIFA ranking of "the last one year". It has to be updated every month. And why 1, why not 2 or 3? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sure I know it has to be updated every month. no problem I will do that. articles of each national team has to be updated every month too. Well the main idea about creating this article was to see all nations' highest and lowest rankings. Just I wanted to add last 1 year rankings. No problem I can add last 2 or 3 or all 21 years but the page is not enough for it. so please help me if I create a new article with just highest, lowest and the last ranking is it ok to be accepted? --Teacher0691 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the FIFA rankings are copyrighted (see foot of the page). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thanks, Mat ty.007 07:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above plus WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Fenix down (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTSTATS, LISTCRUFT, GNG, COPYVIO etc. etc. Giant Snowman 11:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as awful, awful statcruft. – Pee Jay 17:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of state highways in Mississippi. SpinningSpark 11:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsigned state highways in Mississippi[edit]

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

For this list, there is no way to verify which route is signed or not. Mississippi DOT does not have any document stating which route is unsigned. —CycloneIsaac (Talk) 18:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to list of state highways in Mississippi (701-999) as a Rockland County Scenario style list. (PS: you can verify by going to the location and checking for signs. But since not all of these are actually unsigned, the point is moot.) --NE2 19:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move as previous editor said. This seems like the best solution. BayShrimp (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move as mention already. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move per the above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of state highways in Mississippi - Looking back at it I don't entirely see much point with the moving, Merge simply seems better. (Thanks Imzadi1979 for pinging me) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move, deletion seems to be an excessive reaction here. --Rs chen 7754 21:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be okay with a merge, if there are concerns that this may not be a substantial article. --Rs chen 7754 18:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move per NE2. Another option would be to refactor this as List of state highways in Mississippi shorter than one mile and include all highways less than one mile regardless of number while giving the routes one mile or longer their separate articles. Dough 48 72 00:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of state highways in Mississippi. There is no reason to maintain two lists. –Fredddie ™ 03:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of state highways in Mississippi. Create a Rockland County Scenario–type list if and only if there is enough information to write a few sentences about each highway other than information that appears in the general state highway list. V C 14:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NE2, WashuOtaku, and Davey2010: any thoughts on merging into the main list, or refactoring into a "shorter than one mile" list? Imzadi 1979 → 22:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would screw with the formatting of the main list where there's something to say that doesn't fit into the template. For the unsigned ones, a list of street names is the minimum necessary to actually find the routes. "Shorter than one mile" is silly arbitrariness. --NE2 23:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Washuotaku: repinging. Imzadi 1979 → 22:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine. Every highway, long or short, should be listed on one list and maybe have its own article. If they currently exist, great; if not, then eventually someone will get around to it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of state highways in Mississippi as a couple of my peers have suggested. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MagicMail[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to be meeting Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for organizations (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services. It is therefore ineligible for inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed, it is subject's 2nd afd nomination and recent was 4 days ago. For this reason, it should be speedy deleted to save the community time. I've just tagged the article for speedy deletion under multiple criteria, WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G4. Closing this AFD as nomination withdrawn. Sorry! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:35, 23 July 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 as already implemented, to the album j⚛e decker ^talk 02:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glorious (Foxes song)[edit]

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

No evidence that this may meet WP:GNG as all references are primary. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON? Laun chba ller 18:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her article. No reason to exist as a stand alone article today as there are no secondary sources to establish notability. It started as a redirect and someone just fluffed it up. I probably would have tried to just boldly revert it first, per common outcomes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too much of a pussy.

The only reason I didn't do so is because I actually came from a reliable source - This Week's Fresh Music Top 20, which contains what they call lozenges (captions) and aired it with one. Irritatingly, this song's lozenge didn't have anything wiki-worthy, so I'm going to give it until Friday - when next week's is first broadcast - and then redirect.--Laun chba ller 18:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The episode did not even mention it, thus I've gone ahead with the redirection.--Laun chba ller 23:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I agree that at present the article has no reason to exist, it will probably be recreated once the song charts, as it will include a referenced chart positions table. But it's unlikely to expand much further than this, leaving it as a stub, as indeed all the articles for Foxes other singles are. Which brings us onto a wider issue – it seems to be the case that ANY charting single is assigned its own article these days, when a large number of them don't merit it: the chart positions are already available on the article Foxes discography and I can't see that there is any other important information that doesn't rely on primary references. You'd be hard pressed to make a case for retaining the other three articles relating to Foxes' singles, and a great many other singles by other artists as well. At some point there might have to be some revision of the stub-class and unclassified articles at WP:SONGS and some judicious pruning undertaken. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Richard, the problem is that we have policy to deal with. In an oversimplifed nutshell, it says we can have an article for any song that charts a major chart, and songs that don't shouldn't exist or become redirects. Personally, I think we have too many stub articles as well, but policy supports this and any attempt to change the policy is likely to meet with strong resistance from people who only write these stubbed little articles, which so happens to be a lot of people. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I totally agree with you and have come across this resistance myself. I know it is difficult to change policy, but I made my comment because I was wondering if it might be possible to revisit such articles a few years down the line and if there have been no changes or views in a long time, editors might take the decision to remove or redirect the article to a parent album. As most of the articles we are talking about are created by editors eager to be "on the spot" with the latest releases, I suspect many of them lose interest in the articles once they are created and move on to the next new thing. Perhaps this would result in a lot of time-consuming PRODs over the years, but I just thought it worth suggesting as a consideration for the future. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an addendum, the WP:SONGS quality levels need revising anyway as some of the articles are clearly in the wrong class – as an example, see Le Freak, which is clearly better than its current stub-class (probably C-class) and unquestionably a song of significant importance worthy of an article of its own. I may have to go through some well known songs when I get time and reassess their class. But I digress, this is a debate for the WikiProject Songs page, not here. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONG specifically says that charting is not enough if there isn't independent coverage of the song (as opposed to coverage from an album review that hits all the album's songs). From what Dennis Brown says, there is no significant coverage, so a delete or redirect would therefore be in order. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: per WP:NSONG and WP:GNG: there is no independent coverage of the song cited, and simply charting would not be sufficient to establish notability for any song. Since the song hasn't even been released yet, merely being a planned single is clearly inadequate. (The redirect would more appropriately go to album article, where it did prior to this article superseding it, rather than to the artist article.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to the album not to her, thank you, I had a brain spasm. Just as we would direct the album to her if the album wasn't notable: redirect to the next stage up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Music Media[edit]

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

I'm finding social media sources but not much else. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article apparently created by the single-purpose account Manpreet Singh Sach does not appear to be meeting Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for companies and organizations. I'm unable to find even a single passing mention in any of the secondary, independent and reliable sources. Although, it does not read so, but it appears to me a promotional page created by its founder, Manpreet Singh Sachdeva. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This was already speedy-deleted once for lacking a credible claim to significance [1], and this version should be too. It's nothing but a collection of personal social networking pages (the links to which have now been deleted but are available in this version), started by a single person in February with zero coverage anywhere. The article is padded with lists of Punjabi singers who have nothing whatsoever to do with this enterprise (not sure what to call it, it certainly isn't a "music chart") + a list of of the PTC Punjabi Music Awards, which again has nothing to do with the putative Punjabi Music Media. Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator has now changed the entity's type from "Music Chart" to "Music Media". The "media" seems to consist of brief posts about various singers, videos, pirated photos, etc. on his social networking sites. In any case, the difference in wording is irrelevant in terms of the entity's significance or any credible claim to it. There simply is none. Likewise the recently added "List of Record Labels", which have no connection whatsoever to the article's subject and are pure deception. Voceditenore (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 - absolutely no claim to significance whatsoever, let alone any sources claiming notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, though no objection to a full delete on notability grounds as well (so we can G4 it in the future). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mendaliv about a full AfD decision. It does have advantages if there are multiple attempts at re-creation and I have a feeling there will be. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Keri (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Ekabhishek^talk 05:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cine Blitz[edit]

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

I don't see coverage adequate to demonstrate notability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a very popular Bollywood movie magazine. Anyone with reasonable interest in Bollywood would vouch its importance. Please do not delete the article. Thanks Randhir 22:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt it is popular, I just didn't see any articles talking about the magazine itself. If you have sources, in any language, please provide. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its a case of WP:COI¹. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 07:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Widely read film magazine in India. As an example, see this page, in which the author states that this is nationally available film magazine with wide readership. Or, here, in which a discourse on brand building mechanism, the author says that a rival magazine (Filmfare) tries to make Cine Blitz appear as synonymous with sensationalism. Or, this short newspaper profile.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This report covers the news of one business group buying the Cine Blitz publication. This page is the book Pop Culture India!: Media, Arts, and Lifestyle names CineBlitz as one of the top three film magazines in the country. Easily meets WP:NMAG.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Dwaipayanc: I think you should support the article with these references but I am not sure about the reference from afaqs and even the reference that you have given from google books is talking about some kind of advertisement but still it lacks significant coverage. And I am afraid to say that this article even fails WP:NMAG#Criteria, it says-

The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education
The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level.
The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society).
The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works.

And if there is any, the keeper/support should mention in the article. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 17:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have cited the wrong WP policy. What I intended to state was WP:NME, which states "Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
have produced award winning work
have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history
are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area
are frequently cited by other reliable sources
are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets

Our case, Cine Blitz, is a significant publication (as mentioned in some sources, such as one of the top 3) in a non-trivial niche market (Indian film industry). This now has been mentioned in the article, with reference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep A well known, popular and one of major film magazines of India.Shyamsunder (talk) 00:36, 29 July 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. Thanks to those who have fixed the article. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Valdés[edit]

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

Non notable individual, badly translated biography. Diego Grez (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is so badly written that notability is difficult to determine. I would give the authors an opportunity to significantly re-write and add references to positive and negative criticism.--Rpclod (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable. Agree that the biography appears badly translated. However, notability is asserted as her being named a member/fellow of the Chilean Academy of Language in 1993, and her being the first woman deputy director of the Academy, elected in 2010 and again in 2013 per the article, as well as having received a 2010 Altazor Award in literary essay category for her book "Enrique Lihn: vistas parciales". Article lists 5 books by her. Calls for tags to improve the article, or notice at some appropriate WikiProject, not for deletion of the article. --do ncr am 01:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see the first AFD was just closed 15 July 2014 with no consensus. By the way, I note a good argument for Keep there with reference to wp:AUTHOR criteria. It seems poor form to immediately re-nominate this for deletion, with no new information or explanation why revisiting this so soon would be a good use of Wikipedia editors' attention. It seems to me appropriate that this should be closed immediately. --do ncr am 02:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This rapid vexatious renomination should be closed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Actually, I was wrong at least in part, and want to apologize to User:Diego Grez. At similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Olmos Muñoz (2nd nomination), i am informed by User:Stalwart111 that a policy/guideline WP:NPASR applies, and an AFDd article can be renominated immediately, especially if there is little/no participation and no consensus. So, sorry, Diego Grez, i don't think it was poor form after all. I now think it is a matter of subjective judgment whether it is good to try to garner attention again right away or not. I personally would not have renominated this one, while in that other case there had been no participation at all. Anyhow, this AFD should continue and focus simply on the merits of the article; a closer should consider what was said in first AFD and what is said here, on merits of the article. --do ncr am 15:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The more the article develops, the more clear it is she is one of the leading literary figures in Chile. The national association she belongs to seems to be a limited membership one of the type that belonging to it would seem to grant notability. Her awards also may well cause her to pass notability. It still needs to be re-worded to be easier to understand, but being hard to understand is not grounds for deletion, and the article is a lot better than when it was first nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My Spanish is a bit rusty, but I think I got the general sense of what the biography on her from the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile was saying. If anyone who is more fluent in Spanish than me wants to check over and make sure I didn't make any mistakes, and also possible see if there is more relevant information to extract from the biography, I would encourage them to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 23 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Repeating my view from 29th June on the first run of the AfD: "there is enough verifiable here to link the subject with an academy and an award, on both of which Wikipedia has articles, indicating that she meets WP:AUTHOR criteria." AllyD (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are sufficient RS to verify notability. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 07:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wondersmiths[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC on all 12 counts - not sufficiently notable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I could find are social networking profiles (Twitter, Bandcamp, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, etc); no coverage to suggest that this group might pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 03:39, 19 July 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. No good refs. Nothing meaningful on google. Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 24 July 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 Sandy Bay, Tasmania. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Princes Street Primary School[edit]

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

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Unsourced article about a primary school and there are no reliable sources to help establish notability that exist. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hobart per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Hobart~~ Sandy Bay, Tasmania per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a much better article to merge this to, and it is Sandy Bay, Tasmania. Sandy Bay is a suburb of Hobart where the school is located. Sandy Bay, Tasmania could do with a bit more prose, but stuff from this article may be out of the writers head rather than from publications. If the content had been referenced I would have hinted at keep, but there are no references at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. As non-notable, and per how we handle such topics generally. Merge is inappropriate IMHO -- the text is both uncited and challenged. We should not be merging such text. Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sderot#Sderot cinema. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sderot cinema[edit]

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

I just don't see the reason for this article, particularly a stand-alone one. It's a place where people have gathered to watch things happen. It could be given a quick mention in the main Gaza War (or the more recent Operation Protective Edge) article because it has been noted in the media, but there is no need for a whole article about it (which will likely just consist of commentary anyway). ... discospinster _talk 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything notable and sourced into Sderot.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gaza War. There's nothing here that's notable on its own, but it could fit into a balanced article on the overall situation. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gaza War is about the 2008–09 conflict. This term was coined during the 2014 conflict. // Liftarn (talk)
  - I misread the article. I thought it happened in 2009. In that case I would support merging notable content to Operation Protective Edge. Tchaliburton (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It did happen in 2009 as well, but it was given it's name in 2014. Could be merged to Sderot#Sderot cinema... // Liftarn (talk)
      - That looks like a sensible place to merge the content. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and sourced. As it refers to several periods, possibly including future ones, it cannot be merged in a single article. May be the title should become more general, e.g. Gaza War tourism. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article as written is an event in the current conflict in Gaza. That the article mentions in passing a previous similar event is entirely irrelevant. SpinningSpark 12:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing encyclopaedic in this article whatsoever. Articles that start from the premise of "look how awful foo are behaving" are simply violations of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SOAPBOX. Having this as a standalone article is also a breach of WP:NPOV; I'm sure we could find examples of Gazans cheering the launch of Hamas rockets or celebrating Israeli deaths, but in my view that would be equally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Allowing propaganda from either side is not what Wikipedia is about. At most this could be mentioned in some other article about the more general conflict, but even that I am dubious about. SpinningSpark 12:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (both) j⚛e decker ^talk 02:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liron Elimelech[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. No consensus Liga Leumit was fully pro during the time Elimelech was playing. Fenix down (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. IJA (talk) 10:30, 26 July 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 Nom Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTMP-FM[edit]

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

Exact same radio station as WTMP, less maintained, and just on the FM dial instead of the AM dial. --Z L Media 16:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator It's okay to keep the article. As I said below, I didn't conduct enough research, and it appears that WTMP and WTMP-FM are now indeed two different radio stations, despite being one in the same for many years prior. --Z L Media 20:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The radio station already has a page at WTMP, it doesn't need two. Frmorrison (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Two completely different stations, two completely different formats. Per MOS, seperate pages are created for each. MOS aside, the stations are owned by different companies and broadcast different formats.

WTMP, the AM station, is an Urban Adult Contemporary formatted station owned by WestCoast Media Group. WTMP-FM, the FM station, is a Spanish formatted station (featuring regional Mexican music) owned by Davidson Media Group. Two seperate companies, two very different formats. These are not the exact same radio station. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The stations must have split then, because at one point in time the both of them were the same station. Didn't realize that before nominating. Oops. --Z L Media 19:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No problem, mistakes happen. You can withdraw your nomination. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Double Helix Games. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harker (video game)[edit]

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

It has not established notability since 2009 and the video game was never released. Frmorrison (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Double Helix Games (the developer). A WP:VG/RS search had nothing about the actual game other than its cancelation, as mentioned. Not enough info for the GNG or a standalone article, but enough for a mention in the developer's article. The merge would have been fine with a talk page notice or even just a BOLD redirect. czar ♔ 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did not merge the article with the dev's article because I did not think the information about this cancelled game is notable. Listing the game as cancelled is important, but that is already there. Frmorrison (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That they canceled a game in development (and their explanation whereof) would surely be worthy of mention in the prose czar ♔ 16:56, 24 July 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 02:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack May (fighter)[edit]

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

Non notable fighter. He has only 1 top tier MMA fight (a first round TKO) so he fails WP:NMMA. Two earlier KO losses as a kickboxer means he also fails WP:KICK. Article can be recreated when he gets 3 top tier MMA fights. Mdtemp (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for either WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. I probably would have waited to put this up until his next UFC fight because he'll probably get his 3 top tier fights if he wins. However, that is WP:CRYSTALBALL and right now he's not notable. I have no objection to saving this article off to someone's sandbox. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 26 July 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 02:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo de Groot[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer. Fails WP:KICK. The IFMA is an amateur event, so qualifying for its world championship tournament does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk)

Delete as per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable kickboxer .–Davey2010 • (talk) 21:41, 23 July 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 02:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pakištynės[edit]

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

Non notable martial art. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't find the sources necessary to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with no significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Goff[edit]

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

Unless I'm missing something here this person does not meet the GNG. Does not appear to have won any awards and coverage is minimal and mostly in her home area. I'm not sure if being in a list of the most influential under 40 residents counts. What does everyone else think? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Goff won a regional Emmy Award in South Carolina, has been featured in Stars and Stripes (which is a worldwide publication on military bases). Now, granted, more sources could be featured, but Goff isn't just a local reporter/anchor. This week, she is anchoring "Early Today", an early-morning news show on NBC network affiliates (typically about 4:30am) and "First Look" on MSNBC. The sources given are sufficient to meet GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:22, 23 July 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. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohev Shalom Talmud Torah Congregation of Olney[edit]

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

Non notable house of worship. Nothing notable is asserted in the article. Has no particular architectural or historic significance. Fails WP:ORG and is in violation of WP:NOTDIR. John from Idegon (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (though there may not be what to merge) and redirect to National Synagogue: this synagogue is a break-off from the latter, and almost all coverage seems to be about that aspect of its history. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will Withdraw my nomination pending merger and an admin to snow close this. John from Idegon (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skyward International Aviation Fokker 50[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:EVENT, only 4 crew deaths, no passengers, obscure operator. Brandmeister^talk 14:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep only if a flight number can be located for this, otherwise it doesn't meet WP:EVENT. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - a few fatalities and coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has media coverage and fatalities. This question wouldn't be raised if the incident happened in Europe. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant recent event with little or no impact, even if this happened in Europe, and I frankly don't understand the "Weak Keep" votes above with delete rationales. WP is not the news. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — "Significant coverage" is an requirement for notability and in this case there was no such coverage. – Zntrip 01:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage? It's been covered in local and in international media. It doesn't have to be front page. There are hundred of pages on relatively small aviation incidents that have not made big news. I think there are a few double standards here. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some coverage because it's a recent event. Will there be any mention of it anywhere after, say, 3-5 years? I doubt. Conversely, accidents like recent Air Algérie Flight 5017 will be remembered in long term. Brandmeister^talk 15:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtaylor848: Simply being covered by media is insufficient. Obviously the only way we know about an event that happened in a remote region of the world is through news media. And your fears of a double standard are unfounded. There are not hundreds of articles on aviation accidents like this one. The truth of the matter is that accidents involving chartered cargo flights on small aircraft, like this one, are too frequent to be notable. – Zntrip 01:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic but insignificant aviation accident. No longlasting effect or news coverage....William 12:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please keep this article, it is in the same class as most of the other aviation incidents listed for 2014, do not let 3 large incidents keep the information from seeming important.196.35.246.194 (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above comment. m@ππ¡✖.ChAn^{t0IK | c@ntr!b5} 06:38, 31 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Hills Mall[edit]

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

NN 2-dozen-store (article claims 170,000 sq. ft.) shopping mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion at WP:OUTCOMES contains no examples of AfD discussions that support the claims of the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Twice before the start of the AfD, the nominator has removed material from the article instead of adding Template:CN tags. Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The total GLA is 229,000 sqft as per www.arcturusrealty.com. On the icsc.org categories, this appears to be a "Community Center ('Large Neighborhood Center')". A picture from [2] and this map indicate that 15 of the 25 stores are accessible from an inside walkway. Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alternate search terms include Highland Hills Shopping Mall and Highland Hill Mall. Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches at Google books, Google newspaper, as well as Google web did not turn up WP:GNG coverage of this topic. Google images revealed the leasing agent (Arcturus). This is the kind of non-notable that goes beyond WP:N to WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kitchener, Ontario as a reasonable WP:ATD. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 23 July 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 13:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I originally closed this but again too early, So have relisted.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete It comes down to the usual issue for shopping centers: there's nothing to say. It was built; it has an address; it has stores. The end. Indeed, more of the article is devoted to the adjacent transit center than the to shopping center. there's no notability here beyond a retail guide. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First 3 sources are directory listings and the last 2 are about transit terminals, not the mall. found nothing in google. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no evidence of reliable sources to establish the notability of this mall. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The SPAs aside, the consensus for deletion is clear. Deor (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris J. Perry[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

appears non-notable. Google searches only turn up routine coverage, and a minor court case. The tone of the article also has issues. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - biography of a nonentity. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Subject has added two sources which are not easily checked, a Social Work Today article and a Community Care article, both from 1981. Neither magazine appears to have online archives on their site going back nearly that far (unsurprisingly), so it's hard to quickly evaluate how much the articles were about the subject. Both are sources references in other articles here, Community Care on Social work, International Stuttering Awareness Day, John Barrowman, and Martin Narey, Social Work Today only on Web 2.0 (yeah, I didn't see that one coming either.) As such, these are not the most visible sources; they do seem likely to be reliable and not just local in scope. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An nice resume to be sure, but certainly not what I would consider to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I can't find any secondary coverage of the subject that rises above routine. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person was a local government employee who made no lasting impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, per nominator. Sarah 10:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~RETAIN~~. When this article appeared a little over a year ago, based upon a story in "There's more to LIFE",I was absolutely delighted. Prior to that any one searching Chris J Perry, former Director of Social Services, on Google pulled up information on the high profile court case based on the prosecution evidence at the end of which the Judge directed the Jury to bring in a verdict of "not guilty" there being "no case to answer". This entry put the record straight. Christopher James Perry (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~RETAIN~~ It is hard to understand how this article went through all the hoops when it was submitted and had the tag removed and yet a year later the person about whom the article was written made two minor amendments by way of update and it is threatened with deletion. As for notoriety: i) There will be few people who were teenagers between 1956 and 1962 in Sheffield or South Yorkshire who would not have heard of C J Perry and Peter York and the Pontiacs; ii)There will be few people who worked in Social Services between 1960 and 2000 who would not be aware of Chris Perry; iii) there will be few people who worked at a senior level with older people between 1997 and 2012 who would not be aware of him; iv) there will be few people who were in South Wales between 1982 and 2000 who would not have heard of Chris Perry or in Hampshire from 1997 onward, and; v) Chris Perry still presents a weekly programme on Express FM from September to May each year.Christopher James Perry (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reasons why you would qualify for a Wikipedia article that doesn't cite any substantive coverage in reliable sources. Most of them are completely unverifiable claims — since we don't have the capacity to directly poll all of those groups to find out whether they've heard of you or not, reliable source coverage is our only way of determining whether the claim is true or not. As well, WP:NMEDIA only grants a presumption of notability to nationally distributed radio personalities, and not to every single person who hosts a radio program on their local radio station. And you need to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest policies as well — they don't mean that you're required to completely abstain from edits about yourself at all, but you do need to exercise a greater level of caution that you're not violating our content and inclusion rules to promote yourself. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RETAIN Chris Perry: i) received an Individual Age Positive Award in 2004 in recognition of his campaigning against age discrimination in the work place, which was presented to him by The Rt Hon Malcolm Wicks MP and Lorraine Kelly; ii) had a successful petition on the Number 10 Website in 2010, and; iii) was elected an Honorary Member of the British Association of Social Workers in 2012 in recognition of a lifetimes contribution to social work. 79.79.100.218 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for him. None of those, however, are reasons why somebody gets an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Chris Perry was a tremendous influence on my life, made an outstanding and lasting contribution to social work and few would have bounced back from the court case as he did. Carol Y Gerrett (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chris Perry deserves the recognition for the work he did and the impact he had on so many peoples' lives over a fifty year period and the lassting influence he had on social policy.Carol Y Gerrett (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist to confer "recognition" on people who were tremendous influences on your life (and while I'm happy that your husband/partner is important to you — oh, the things one learns from the edit history, User:Carol gerrett-perry — it also means that you have a conflict of interest.) We exist to collate verifiable information about people who have already passed a notability guideline by virtue of having garnered substantive coverage in reliable sources, not to let everybody on earth have a Google presence just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ Notoriety: i) There will be few people who were teenagers in Sheffield or South Yorkshire during the late fifties and early sixties who would not have heard of C J Perry and Peter York and the Pontiacs. ii) There will be few people who were social workers in England and Wales between 1960 and 2000 who will not be aware of Chris Perry. iii) There will be few people who lived in South Wales between 1982 and 2000 who will not have heard of Chris Perry; iv) there will be few people who have lived in Hampshire since 1997 who have not heard of Chris Perry; v) most people working with older people in senior positions will be aware of Chris Perry; vi) the Court Case made National Headlines and was unique - no other Director of Social Services ever having been similarly charged - Judge Directed Jury to bring in a verdict of "not guilty" there being no "case to answer"; vii) Chris Perry was subsequently presented with an individual Age Positive Award in 2004 by The Rt Hon Malcolm Wicks MP, Minister for Work and Pensions and Lorraine Kelly in recognition of his campaigning against "age discrimination in the workplace", and; viii) in 2012 Chris Perry was elected an Honorary Member of the British Association of Social Workers in recognition of a lifetimes contribution to social work Christopher James Perry (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ When this article was first submitted a year ago it went through all the hoops and had the tags removed. What has changed? Christopher James Perry (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is not easy for people who are aware of the discussion to find the entry in order to participate Christopher James Perry (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the recent posters:

If you posted more than one "keep" or "retain", I have struck through all but one. This is standard Wikipedia practice; in assessing what the overall tone of response is, we don't want the illusion of additional weight given to editors who state their preference (what we call "!votes") repeatedly.
I certainly understand that it may be a convenience to the subject to have this rather than other items show up on a Google search. However, Wikipedia does not exist for the convenience of its subjects, nor to control what Google puts out.
Statements that there are few people of a give group who are not aware of someone are problematic to evaluate, unless there is some existing polling to show it. (And it would not be appropriate for Wikipedians to do such polling, under our guideline against original research.)
It has not been through "all the hoops". Previously cleared have been concerns that the piece was a copyright violation and that it had no references. It had not been tested for notability, which is what this process is. And Wikipedia articles can be checked at any time.
I'm not certain what is meant by the statement that this page is not easy to find for people who are aware of the discussion. It is linked to on the article page itself, so that people who are interested in the article can find it. It is listed on our list of articles currently in the Articles For Deletion process, so that Wikipedians interested in articles under deletion can find it. It has a unique URL, so that if one wishes to direct those not already on Wikipedia to the discussion, one can do so... although I will note that bringing in a lot of people without Wikipedia experience to sway the discussion tends to be ineffective, as they commonly due not address the actual Wikipedia guideline issues at hand, and can often be seen as a form of what we call "meatpuppetry". If there is some other way that this discussion can be made accessible, please recommend it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This, as written, is an almost entirely unsourced article about a person who does not pass any of our actual inclusion rules. The only footnoted reference is a blurb which does not constitute substantial enough coverage to get him past WP:GNG, let alone WP:NPOL — and the majority of the other listed but unfootnoted sources are the minutes of council meetings (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE that can never confer notability.) Further, Wikipedia does not exist as a public relations database on which anybody is entitled to post an article to control the narrative of what turns up about them in a Google search; it's an encyclopedia, for which our article topics need to properly demonstrate, via the use of reliable sources, that they pass our notability standards. A person whose primary claim of notability was as an unelected bureaucrat at the county level of government does not meet our test for WP:NPOL — even elected councillors at that level of government don't necessarily pass NPOL just because they exist, let alone the council's employees. So I'm sorry, but this is a clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Chris Perry had a huge influence on my life as he did many others and also influenced social policy throughout his career. Few would have bounced back from the court case to re-establish a National Profile as he did and he still attracts 30,000 listeners to his weekly radio programme from Sept to May each year. This entry was accepted when first submitted a year ago. Carol Y Gerrett (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Chris Perry's involvement with the voluntary sector, campaigning and media work were all outside the call of duty. He had a successful petition on the number 10 website and continues to campaign rigorously. Clearly worthy of continued inclusion on Wikipedia having been on for a year Carol Y Gerrett (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have copied the following post over from the article's talk page, as it seems intended to address the deletion question. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have know Chris Perry in a professional context since 2008. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of his Wiki entry, but if he has been cited in a wikipedia article which casts him in a bad light it is appropriate that he is given a chance to present himself in a good light. Simon Whipple, Solicitor, Bransgore, Hampshire Simonwhipple (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no Wikipedia article that has cast him in a bad light; the subject was complaining about Google results pointing to articles on other websites that he felt cast him in an inappropriate light. It is not Wikipedia's job to correct Google nor to ensure that people's public image aligns with their self-image. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Directors of Social Services would only have a chance of being inherently notable if they worked for a very significant jurisdiction. South Glamorgan just doesn't cut it. Nothing else makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ It is readily apparent from the above comments that many of those making them have not read the entry in its entirety or, if they have, have not understood the significance of what they have read. I agree entirely that someone is not appropriate for Wikipedia simply by virtue of having been a Director of Social Services. But that is not what this entry is meant to imply. Could I suggest that before reaching a decision the person responsible does read it all the way through for one last time, please? It met all the criteria a year ago when the tags were removed. Wish I had left alone and not made the two minor changes in pursuit of accuracy Christopher James Perry (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So, which elements of his life and career do you think make him notable? Because nothing you've enumerated above seems to me to be sufficient. Comments that boil down to "everyone in this area has heard of him" aren't really relevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may think his career is boring as a rock. But it is as much a part of the political and social landscape of his area as a rock is the physical landscape, too. Bolts of lightning come and go unnoticed in the physical landscape; only in politics do we consider them more important. Perhaps it might be better to recognize those that make the lasting and beneficial contributions to society. Anarchangel (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Anarchangel: What does that mean? Do you have an opinion as to whether or not this article should be deleted? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Abramson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable real estate consultant and federal government political appointee. Article presently includes 12 linked sources, none of which are independent, reliable sources per WP:RS for purposes of establishing notability. The specific notability guideline of WP:NPOL does not seem to apply, and the subject does not satisfy it in any event. Several of the article's linked sources are now dead links. That having been said, none of the sources appear to be media publications of general circulation, or other secondary sources, such as are normally used to establish notability pursuant to the general guidelines of WP:GNG. All sources appear to be primary, not secondary sources: government documents, government or organizational websites with which the subject had some association, and, of course, the last two "sources" are Wikipedia articles about the federal organization to which the subject was appointed. I'm not sure how this article survived the first AfD in 2009 (apparently there were some procedural "fairness" issues related to a PROD), but I see nothing here that merits the inclusion of this subject as a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a resume bank or a memorial to obscure government appointees. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Abramson was nominated to serve as a commissioner for NCLIS by President Clinton and his appointment was confirmed by the US Senate. As such, he is among a relatively exclusive group of individuals who have been nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate for service as a federal official. Please let me know if you have further questions. JudithRussell User:JudithRussell, (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC) -- signature added manually[reply]

Furthermore, this entry documents the history of NCLIS, a small, but important, agency of the federal government. Commissioners developed policy recommendations for action by the White House and Congress so understanding who served as commissioners informs an understanding of the commissions actions. Just recently, a 2000 report on the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, was reviewed and recited in reference to a legislative initiative to sunset that agency, so the work of NCLIS is still relevant. JudithRussell User:JudithRussell, (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC) -- signature added manually[reply]

Comment - Judith, the issue in this discussion is not the significance or importance of NCLIS. There is already a Wikipedia article on point regarding the agency: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. The issue in this discussion is whether Charles E. Abramson, as a former political appointee to the NCLIS advisory board, is a suitable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. The first step of our analysis will be determining whether Charles Abramson is "notable" in accordance with our general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and our specific notability guidelines governing the biographies of persons per WP:BIO. I urge you to review these policies and guidelines linked above. In brief, they require that the notability for any person be documented with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:RS, and those sources must be secondary, not primary sources, that are independent of the subject. In this case, that means government documents and government agency websites cannot be used to demonstrate Charles Abramson's notability. Significant coverage of the subject in published sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, online news sources, -- or even the Helena, Montana Independent Record -- do count. Moreover, the coverage must be significant, not trivial; a one-sentence mention in the Post doesn't cut it, either. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I think the guidelines for NPOL are too unclear on this matter. In fact, I think those guidelines fail to deal with enough. What exactly are "national" offices held by politicians? Clearly in the US all cabinet positions apply, but what other positions? Ambassadorships evidently are not international offices, but are they national ones? I think we need a standard lower than every position nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, and the NCLIS does not seem to be notable enough to merit articles on all its members, at least if we lack reliable, secondary sources on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Johnpacklambert: WP:NPOL is poorly written, but I think it was intended to extend a presumption of notability to so-called "subcabinet" political appointees, like an Assistant Undersecretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs, etc., not a political appointee to some esoteric library advisory board. There are literally hundreds of these types of presidential appointments, still subject to senate confirmation, and, for Wikipedia purposes, they should be subject to the full WP:GNG analysis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a person who it was written to cover is James Moyle, although his position as Assitant Secretary of the Treasury is not even near the low end. Plus considering there have been two biographies of him written (one by John Henry Evans and Gordon B. Hinckley, the other I don't remember exactly who wrote it), he passes the basic "has a biography on him" criteria, which is about the minimum needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the agency has an article does not mean that every single individual who was ever appointed to it automatically qualifies for their own separate biography — notability is not inherited, so his own independent notability, as a topic in his own right, would need to be demonstrated through the use of reliable sources that are specifically about him. That's not what's present here, however; virtually all of the listed sources are primary ones which cannot confer notability. I would be comfortable accepting the NCLIS as a sufficient claim of notability if good, reliable sources were present, but it's not a role that confers an automatic presumption of notability on a person in the absence of those reliable sources — it's a role where if he doesn't pass WP:GNG on his own steam, then unfortunately he just doesn't get to have an article. So delete if the sourcing doesn't see a serious upgrade by close. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any reliable sources to establish the notability of this individual, so fails WP:GNG and most certainly WP:NPOL. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shelagh McKenna[edit]

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

The existing citation is to a website associated directly with the article subject. A web search does not show any significant coverage in reliable sources. This has had a notability tag since 2010 and no reliable sources have been added. SchreiberBike talk 07:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I am afraid I'll have to go with the nom, sorry. RWCasinoKid (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Sadly there's no notability outside of that one reference which is basically a fansite anyway. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I did 11 SERP pages on google, didn't find much except copies of the Wikipedia article, searching by her name in quotes and filtering it with likely other words (Broadway OR kirov OR etc). Doesn't meet GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:27, 29 July 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 Crossbarry. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurrane National School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crossbarry per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:50, 10 July 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 08:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. The article was created by an editor User:Grove76 in 2009 who brought it to this version after removing some too-promotional text that had been contested. Grove76 commented at the Talk page: "The promotional reference in the site has been removed. The historical kernel remains as it is of interest to those researching the Crossbarry Ambush. This strictly historical nature of the article will be expanded on as newer discoveries are made regarding the old school. (Grove76 (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) " The school apparently does have association with Richard Barrett (Irish republican) (1899–1922), who was principal there, and was later executed during the Irish Civil War, according to that version of the article. I grant that the promise "will be expanded" has not been met, but there does seem to be some historical importance. However, it is not clear in the article which buildings are referred to, the previous version mentioned that "The old building ceased to be in use as a school house in 1956 when the new school was built closeby. It is currently a private residence." I myself don't have access to Irish newspapers databases. Some researching and editing is required, not deletion. --do ncr am 01:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram--You agree that it does not meet GNG? If so, the proper course is either a redirect or a delete. We don't at AfD keep articles that have not been shown to meet GNG. Because there "may" be GNG sources out there. It can always be recreated upon the GNG sources -- if they exist -- being discovered. As you point out, it has been 5 years .... " And in any case, from the above it appears that it might still only qualify for a redirect, albeit to a different target (the Ambush or Barrett). Epeefleche (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No offense intended or taken, but i don't agree that the topic does not meet wp:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There is no requirement that an article include sources at all; stubs with no sources can be fine to have, if there is knowledge (or reasonable expectation) that significant coverage in reliable sources exists. At AFD we can try to determine whether significant coverage exists. Not implying you are saying otherwise, but AFD is not for cleanup; demands that an article be fixed to some quality level or else it will be deleted are not proper. In this case my tentative judgment, admittedly based on not much, is that there probably is notability here. It sure would be nice if someone with Irish databases access could add information to the article or this AFD discussion, but at this point i judge it best to Keep the article. --do ncr am 15:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the GNG sources need not exist in the article itself. And I completely agree that AfD is not for cleanup. (And yes, sources with zero sources can exist, though of course they can be stubbed and text deleted to the extent the text is not supported by RSs and is challenged, per wp:v).

That said, the RS refs that constitute significant coverage must be shown to exist, for the article to meet GNG. The GNG test is not: "Do editors fail to show RS GNG significant coverage, but--despite the absence of demonstrable GNG significant coverage--guess that such coverage exists?" Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crossbarry per long-standing precedent as documenteed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and evidenced by over 1,000 school redirects. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 19 July 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 07:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crossbarry. No evidence this school is notable, indeed, but a redirect to the relevant place makes sense, is cheap, and is routine practice as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. BethNaught (talk) 15:08, 28 July 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. Two relistings with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Erdel[edit]

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

No indication in the article as it stands that this minor character is remotely notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why is this character notable? Fails WP:NOTABILITY --Jersey92 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 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 07:08, 23 July 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 LeAnne Howe. SpinningSpark 13:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Choctalking on Other Realities[edit]

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

Non-notable memoir, failing WP:NBOOKS. Many edits by User:Auntlutebooks, implying bias and advertising. Mikeblas (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to LeAnne Howe. I can't find any coverage to show that this book is ultimately notable enough to merit its own article. I would probably argue that most of the articles created by the COI editor could be redirected to Howe's article, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:53, 14 July 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 07:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect per Tokyogirl79, I had no luck finding reviews, etc., of this work in reliable sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a rough consensus here that the article (just) passes the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Not notable. Has not yet developed any new drugs. Its products are all long used routine drugs. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the first treatment for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy would definitely be notable - though it seems like the company's treatment is in clinical trial stage and not approved yet. Still, the fact that they're working on this medication is notable. Thanks --Contented300 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contented300 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each drug has value for specific patients, so even if these drugs are older, the company is still "noteable." What's "noteable" is in the eye of the beholder. I follow this company because of the drugs for severely disabled patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy that they are in the process of bringing forward. There are no meds now for these patients so the fact that they are developing one does indeed make them "noteable." This would be a huge breakthrough for these patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartanSister (talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — SpartanSister (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable, has multiple sources. Also Jeffrey S. Aronin merits an individual article, is clearly notable. --do ncr am 02:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could use more sources, but has enough independent third party sources to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for both of you @Doncram:, @VMS Mosaic: Which sources in the article did you consider to be independent third party sources AND about this company? Of the 12 references provided I identified only one, and it's an interview with the CEO so only partially independent. My analysis was that the other 11 references are either self-referential or they don't mention Marathon. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not going to do all the work that could be done on sorting out and documenting what new drugs Marathon is responsible for, and finding coverage about those drugs, and on sorting out which older drugs Marathon might merely be manufacturing without any new innovation. I have replied to assertions of contradictions in the record, below, and am done for now. I stand with belief that this firm is notable in fact, and is shown already to be notable in the article. --do ncr am 19:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am still working on this, but I have found significant contradictions in the record about this company. The article says the company was founded in 2010 by Jeffrey Aronin. But the company's own website says "Over the past 12 years, our team has brought 30 medications to market in 87 countries."[3] This implies that the company was founded in 2002, not 2010. This news release talks about Marathon Pharmaceuticals being acquired by Cambrex in 2001. Will continue to investigate but I have serious problems with keeping an article that seems to contradict itself, or at the very least contain to significant unverified information. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further: "2010" isn't a typo, it's from this interview with Aronin.[4] Completely contradicted by the company's own website. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "founded in 2010 by Aronin" assertions from the article, as they are not supported from that interview or anywhere else AFAIK. It appears to be careless previous editing that created that incorrect conflation. --do ncr am 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one more contradiction asserted is not one. In "the company's own website" assertion quoted above, it is NOT stated that Marathon was founded in 2002. It states that during 2002 to 2014, members of its current leadership team successfully brought 30 medications to market, e.g. Aronin doing that within other entities counts. This is highly relevant information for a startup company's business plan/website to report. --do ncr am 19:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, twice) Good catch of some possible contradictions to explain. But, hmm, the Suntimes interview does not state that he founded Marathon then; he is mentioned as founder of Paragon. However, while there may be some editing required, and some untangling of corporate relationships, methinks that calls for editing, not deleting. This Suntimes article cited in the article states that Aronin founded Ovation in 2002 and sold it in 2009, then a year later (2010?) founded Paragon Pharmaceouticals. Paragon subsequently acquired startups including Marathon. So, Marathon could have existed in startup for longer, with or without Aronin involved. It seems likely to me that Aronin did not found Marathon, but rather acquired/invested in it in 2010. Does this work: Marathon could have been started pre-2001, been acquired by Cambrex in 2001, been acquired/invested into by Aronin in 2010. And it is definitely possible that the current Marathon Pharmaceutical LLC legal entity had previous legal entities broadly called Marathon Pharmaceuticals (e.g. but not being an LLC). This seems more likely to me than there having existed two completely unrelated Marathon Pharmaceutical entities, but that is also possible. --do ncr am 18:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leaving aside the verifiability problems I cited above, I just don't find the coverage necessary to meet WP:CORP. The references cited in the article are mostly self-referential or are not about Marathon. The only significant independent reference is an interview with Jeffrey Aronin that mentions Marathon. I could find nothing more in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i comment above, I don't see that there are obvious contradictions in the sources, while there may be some editing in the Wikipedia article required. I personally think notability is established. --do ncr am 18:42, 20 July 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 07:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been edited since the initial AfD, and has more secondary sources to prove notability. Frmorrison (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Chicago Sun-Times article is the only source that clearly meets WP:CORP, assuming that the FDA is a primary source rather than a secondary source. However, a few minutes' research suggests that there are further press articles mentioning Marathon that would further help meet the threshold. P.S. Aronin's multiple pharma business ventures seem to confuse the facts in the discussion above.

Weak keep I'm pretty sure the USFDA is a reliable source, and for sure the Chicago Sun-Times is, but I am not sure if StreetInsider or Fierce Biotech are or not, but based on the fact that there are at least two reliable sources in the article, that is enough in my book to pass WP:GNG and WP:V. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Fryer Russell[edit]

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

Article seems to have originated as a largely genealogical entry by a single purpose editor. The claim to notability is an entry in the 1952 "Who's who", which appears to be based on a single scholarship award. The remainder of the article is unsourced or original research. According to a recent edit there is no known compilations of his work, other than a private record. In my view this all falls well below the sort of credible notability threshold for a Wikipedia profile. Sionk (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The cited 1952 "Who's Who" is an edition of "Who's Who in Art", which as far as I'm aware is not the same as Who's Who (UK). There are many variants of Who's Who, and "Who's Who in Art" may be a vanity publication. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can confirm that he does not have an entry in the actual Who Was Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm having difficulty finding sources online. A quick google search brings up several sites with information on Fryer Russell that are based on the Wikipedia page ([5] and [6], for example) This page mentions him apparently independently of Wikipedia, but isn't sufficient to establish any kind of notability by Wikipedia's standards. A search on Dorset Life magazine's website ("the website dedicated to the history, the nature, the landscape, the people, the buildings and all the other facets of the county") also revealed nothing [7]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 15 July 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 07:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It's difficult to even figure out what his claim to notability is: as a poet, a painter? One of his watercolors was sold at auction, but that's hardly enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. No online sources, no obvious claim to notability, no indication there are likely to be offline sources sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:56, 27 July 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Setsuri[edit]

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

This is the Japanese word of "providence." This disambiguation page lists it as the nickname or first name of two Japanese people, neither of which has a biographical article, and an alternative name (used in Japan) for a minor religious sect. I don't think this really meets the standards for a disambiguation page under WP:Disambiguation. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The first page linked to doesn't even contain this word. Setsuri seems to mostly refer to the cult, it should redirect there. The artist himself doesn't seem to have warranted a page but a disambiguation note can be inserted if/when he does. SPACKlick (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the invalid first entry, moved a partial match to 'see also' and added a valid entry. User:Kitfoxxe and User:SPACKlick, what do you think of the dab as it now stands? Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is better now. I'm not sure if it meets the standards for a disambig page or not now. If an article were to be started on the manga artist it would be a clear keep for me. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kitfoxxe, at the moment it looks like it should be a disambiguation note on the religion page saying "For the river see", if there were an article on the artist that would obviously change.SPACKlick (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think any evidence has been put forward that 'Setsuri' is more likely to apply to the religion (for an English language reader) than for the river (which seems to retain the name 'Setsuri' when in English. As there is no evidence of a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, under WP:2DABS: If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name. Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On absolutely trivial evidence, first page of a google search is;

Wiki, 5x Artist, Religion, 4x(unrelated), Religion, 3x(unrelated), 2xArtist, Cult, 2x(unrelated), Religion, (unrelated), 2xArtist, Religion, River, Religion, 7x(unrelated), Religion, 4x(unrelated), Artist.

Which makes a good case for the river being barely referred although the unrelated results make me think Setsuri might be a region rather than just a river. Searches for Setsuri River and Setsuri Religion return similar numbers. I'm ok with the Disamb as it is. SPACKlick (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suspect that Ghits are likely to under-represent the notability of a river as compared to a cult, so there is no reliable evidence of either being the primary topic. With the redlinked manga artist too, it seems a reasonable dab page in its present state. PamD 16:02, 18 July 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 07:04, 23 July 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 Lions Clubs International. Consensus is that the article does not pass the notability guideline but a redirect is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Club of Hong Kong North[edit]

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

Nothing in this article indicates notability. There are 100s of Leo Clubs worldwide - we can't have an entry for everyone. A list of non notable office bearers doesn't make them notable Gbawden (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no notability established. The article is written with the likely intention as a WP:PROMO, at least it definitely reads like it. --Cold Season (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lions Clubs International as a non-notable organisation. Per nom, we don't need a promotional article for every one of the hundreds of Leo clubs worldwide. Note that there is no article for the parent organisation, Lions Club of Hong Kong North. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:53, 15 July 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 07:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Philg88. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arnel Pineda. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Zoo (Filipino band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:MUSICBIO#C6 requires that two members are independently notable, and only one is, therefore a redirect may be appropriate. No attempt is made to meet any other criteria. Once this is deleted, Zoology can be A9d. Laun chba ller 22:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arnel Pineda - A search failed to find enough reliable coverage. However, any information about Pineda and his time in the band can be merged to Pineda's article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pineda's first big band; passes WP:BAND, but a merge would be OK. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 7 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 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 07:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arnel Pineda per Narutolovehinata5.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:44, 28 July 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 clear that subject satisfies GNG for multiple accomplishments. BLP1E is inapplicable regardless to a subject's voluntary participation for nineteen days on a nationally broadcast television program, so neither the letter nor spirit of BLP1E would be served by applying it here. It's not "BLP1THINGOFANYKIND". postdlf (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article was deleted following discussion 26 October 2010 based upon WP:BLP1E arguments. Article was undeleted and userfied 9 December 2011 following request for undeletion on the basis that as the founder of National History Bee and Bowl, the subject met WP:N requirements. Article moved from user space to live article 13 December 2011.

Since restoration, article has not been improved to a good state, and WP:BLP issues have still not been addressed. Relationship to National History Bee and Bowl is mentioned only in passing, and focus of article remains his appearances on Jeopardy!, which circle back to WP:BLP1E.

Google serach for "david madden national history bee and bowl" provides no results that meet WP:BLPPRIMARY or WP:SIGCOV. WP:BIO does not provide guidelines for founders of quiz bowls, and while the individual is tangently related to academia, WP:ACADEMIC does not apply to Madden as he is not a scholar or researcher. AldezD (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources needed to establish notability. Googling turned up nothing useful. Being the founder of the National History Bee and Bowl is not sufficient to establish notability in lieu of sources. Msnicki (talk) 01:46, 7 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources years after the subject's involvement in the Jeopardy! show:
1. Ferguson, Mike (2014-02-08). "'I'll take history for $1,000, Alex': Founder of history bowl attends Montana competition". Billings Gazette. Archived from the original on 2014-07-22. Retrieved 2014-07-22.
  "Madden, 32, is founder and executive director of the National History Bee and Bowl, an individual and team competition with about 50,000 participants in more than 200 places around the country and overseas, too"
  
  "Madden, a graduate of Princeton University, founded the organization four years ago on his more than $400,000 in winnings on America’s most famous quiz show. He flew out this weekend to participate in the Montana state championship"
  
  "Also an art historian and genealogist, Madden said he “writes none of the questions” for the history competition but “edits everything.”"
  
  "Madden’s wife, Nolwenn Léon Madden, is director of the organization’s international operations. Madden said he enjoys traveling to as many competitions as he can, and his passport supports that assertion. After recently attending competitions in Sri Lanka and Dubai, he has upcoming appointments in Shanghai and Beijing."
2. Zarnowski, Tatiana (2011-02-28). "Saratoga Springs competition will test knowledge of history". The Daily Gazette. Archived from the original on 2014-07-22. Retrieved 2014-07-22.
  "National History Bowl and Bee, a private, for-profit startup company, is based in Ridgewood, N.J., where owner David Madden is from."
  
  "In 2005, Madden reigned in a 20-game run on “Jeopardy!,” the second-longest ever after Ken Jennings, who had a 74-game winning streak."
  
  "Quiz Bowl covers history questions and other topics, but Madden wanted a contest that was solely devoted to history, Mantell said."
Here is a small sample of the substantial coverage of David Madden stemming from the Jeopardy! show:
1. Strauss, Robert (2014-07-22). "Worth Noting; I'll Take Quiz Kids For $600, Alex". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-07-22. Retrieved 2014-07-22.
2. Harris, Bob (2007-10-31). "Jeopardy! Winner Hiking for Families of Wounded and Disabled Veterans". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2014-07-22. Retrieved 2014-07-22.
3. Pakkala, Tiffany (2008-01-10). "'Jeopardy' winner turns to hiking with a purpose". Savannah Morning News. Archived from the original on 2014-07-22. Retrieved 2014-07-22.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
WP:BLP1E does not apply because sources like the Billings Gazette article and The Daily Gazette article show that Madden has received media coverage from his involvement in National History Bee and Bowl.
Cunard (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA 3.0 comment: If this article is kept, please history merge User:Scott Illini/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) with this article to fix the cut-and-paste move. User:Scott Illini/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) was deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Scott Illini/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) and contains pre–December 2011 revisions.
Cunard (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has secondary sources for his Quiz Bowl work and Jeopardy appearance. Frmorrison (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's excellent essay on the sourcing. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The greater part of this debate is taken up with a discussion of the correct meaning of the terms "Bahrani" and "Bahraini". AfD is not the best venue for settling such matters. On this the article editors should clarify how the article is using those terms and explicitly state the criteria for inclusion for inclusion in the list in its lede as required by MOS:LIST. Once that is firmly established, the entries can be limited to only those whose article makes a claim to meeting those criteria or otherwise established by RS. If the list ends up empty after that, then is the time to come back to AfD, but not before. I am also moving the title back to List of Bahranis (from where it was recently moved) as this is contrary to MOS:LIST#List naming. SpinningSpark 13:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Bahranis[edit]

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

This was tagged for proposed deletion per WP:PROD. The reason stated in the prod notice was as follows:

"Article exclusively based on anecdotal evidence and no reliable source explicitly states that the individuals listed (many of whom are ethnic Hasawis and Persians) belong to the Baharna ethnic group. The surname al-Bahrani itself denotes Eastern Arabian descent and one does not necessarily have to be an ethnic Baharna to carry that name. Hence, many Sunni clerics such as al-Abbas ibn Yazid al-Bahrani who did not belong to the Baharna ethnic group went by that name."

Because this is rated as a top-importance list and it has a long editing history (with many potential sources having been deleted), deletion of this article may be controversial. So it is more appropriately handled at AfD, where it is likely to get wider scrutiny. I am personally neutral at this time. Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should undoubtedly have a list of [notable] people from Bahrain, as a complement to Category:Bahrani people, just as we should any nationality. And we also list notable people by ethnicity. To the extent there isn't a perfect overlap there, how those different groupings are resolved (whether in one list or in separate ones) is a matter for ordinary editing and discussion to resolve. The present lack of sources in the list is not relevant to whether it should be kept or whether the listed individuals' status as people of Bahrain or of Bahrani descent is verifiable (obviously some such notable people have existed). This should of course be renamed to List of Bahranis to remove the self-referential, MOS noncompliant, and unnecessary use of "notable" in the title (i.e., we don't need to include "notable" in the title to nevertheless limit the list to only notable individuals). postdlf (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Most, if not all, of the individuals listed are of Hasawi (e.g, Nabeel Rajab, Abdulhadi Alkhwaja), Persian (Abbas Almohri), or Qatifi descent. None of the people listed's Bahrani descent is verifiable by any means. AsimAlsadeh (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So your claim is really that there are incorrect entries. That's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. But just to take the first example you listed, Nabeel Rajab is identified in his article (FWIW) as having been born in Bahrain and still living there, and his whole history and notable activities are tied to Bahrain. So that certainly qualifies him for inclusion in a list of people of Bahrain as that's clearly his nationality. You seem instead exclusively focused on ethnicity, though I'd also note that Rajab's article does not mention anything about Hasawi or Qatifi heritage (nor do we even have articles on those groups, which makes me wonder about what's going on here). Regardless, as I stated above, to what extent this list should target nationality or ethnicity (or both) is a matter for ordinary editing and discussion to decide, and not our concern here. postdlf (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ethnic criteria for people in Bahrain is apparently too complex to easily be put in the list. Lack of adequate sourcing and lack of showing that this ethnic grouping is relevant in the current social-political context of Bahrain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Then make it a list focusing on Bahrani nationality rather than ethnicity. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 10 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Problem is that no reliable source states that most of the individuals listed are even of Eastern Arabian descent (Bahrani nationality). Well actually, NO source does, whether reliable or unreliable. Also, this article focuses on those belonging to the Baharna ethnic group, not people of Bahrani nationality. AsimAlsadeh (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of entries are verifiably people of the country of Bahrain, so WP:TNT is not a useful approach here; in other words, this list could more easily be edited into a list focused exclusively on nationality than to delete this and restart from scratch. Beyond that, unless you don't know what nationality means, I don't think you mean to claim that whether someone is of Bahrani nationality is never verifiable, which would just be absurd. Bahrain is a real country, not some made-up micronation or disputed territory without official recognition. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Bahrani (the modern sense which translates one who belongs to the Eastern Arabian Baharna ethnic group) is different from a Bahraini (a person from Bahrain). Yes, it is next to impossible to verify if someone is a Bahrani or not because such claims have never been put forward in books or any other reliable sources mostly because these claims have always been passed down generation to generation orally and they still do to this day and never have been put forward in texts. Go ahead and try finding a source (whether reliable or unreliable) to prove me otherwise.

Oh and sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but it was pretty stupid for you to assume that the demonym of a person originating from Bahrain is Bahrani without doing any research beforehand. AsimAlsadeh (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bahraini people redirects to Bahrani people, and List of Bahrainis redirects to List of notable Bahranis, which tells me that Wikipedia editors understand that either spelling is used when transliterating from the Arabic. And reliable sources clearly use the spelling "Bahraini" when referring to the ethnicity as well as the nationality.[8] So the lack or presence of an "i" in the term in English doesn't distinguish either way. Accordingly, every comment I have made in this unnecessarily interminable discussion has dealt with and distinguished between ethnic and national meanings. postdlf (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source refers to ethnic Bahrainis (Sunni Arabs, Persians, Bahrani, etc). Moreover, the terms Bahrani بحراني and Bahraini بحريني are two different words and do not have the same meaning which is why they are transliterated differently. Also, redirecting those pages to impertinent articles about the Baharna was not appropriate.AsimAlsadeh (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments (such as calling the articles "impertinent") are increasingly making me question your motives regrding this topic. What's your interest or investment in who is identified as Bahraini or Bahrani? postdlf (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Upon request by AsimAlsadeh, I'm here to clarify the difference between Bahraini and Bahrani.

Short answer: Bahraini (plural: Bahrainis) is the nationality in modern use (post 1960s-70s). The second, Bahrani (plural: Baharna/Bahranis) is the one used to refer to the ethnic/sectarian (Shia) group - Sometimes any Shia who originates from the Gulf region is referred to as Bahrani.

Long answer: The confusion is present in Arabic language as well. The reason for this is (original research - can't be bothered to search for sources) that Bahrani was the old term used for Bahrain nationals (until 1950s?). Sunnis (who by modern day are never referred to as Bahrani) in 1923 used the word Bahrani to refer to the National Congress they formed to oppose British intervention. Bahrani is arguably the correct Arabic word to use for people who are from Bahrain (regardless if Bahrain is the current small island or the large space of Eastern Arabia + I remember reading from some Lebanese and Egyptian media outlets using the term in recent years to refer to all Bahrainis, but this is rare). I wouldn't say that Rajab family or Sayyids aren't Baharna, because they self-describe themselves as such, and the word doesn't really refer to a single ethnicity; Bahrana are ethnically diverse and their strongest tie appears to be their sect and dialect of Arabic (they of course would always state that they are the original people of Bahrain who belong to ibn Qais, Tamim and Rabia tribes, but would almost always forget that the Sayyids can never belong to these tribes since they trace their ancestry to Muhammed - yet Sayyids self-identify as Baharna). In addition, many British documents written in 1900-1920s which I went through use Shia and Baharna interchangeably, and certainly referred to bin Rajab as Baharna.

This is an interesting research in Arabic about how the word Bahrani developed over time (it can be summarized in follows: Bahrani was used to anyone from Eastern Arabia, then it was only used to refer to the ethnic/sectarian group in Bahrain, then it was used to refer to all Bahrainis and finally it was again used to refer to the ethnic/sectarian group). Mohamed CJ (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 23 July 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 Millennial Media. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jumptap[edit]

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

A startup company, now swallowed up by its original financers. Article is largely cited to press releases. The list of recognition seems unremarkable, unless the Visiongain Mobile Advertising Awards are something major... Fails WP:NCORP and borders on advertising. Sionk (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP. FWIW the article only spreads the market wire and does not even try to explain what this company does or did. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Millennial Media, which bought it. Jumptap is not independently notable. Andrew³²⁷ 07:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing (per below) on the basis that it may chart soon, If it hasen't charted and or there's no evidence of notability after a month or so I suggest renominating.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come Alive (Paris Hilton song)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NMUSIC and has no clear citating or additional info and sources. IPadPerson (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC

Comment. The full song (listen) and single cover are released.So it shouldn't be removed!!—U990467(talk) 12:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a couple of sources discussing this, e.g. Billboard, MTV. Presumably merging somewhere (e.g. here) would be a better option than deletion. --Michig (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That would definitely work as a merge/redirect. IPadPerson (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or smerge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 7 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is there any indication this won't chart in the next few days? Else this is just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Time (Paris Hilton song) and a waste of time. Stopping nominating Paris' songs, you Britney fans.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do agree with the statement given by Milowent. The page does deserve to stay, and it probably will chart, its already popular. It has sufficient coverage exists in reliable music sources to meet WP:GNG, WP:NSONGS --Miss X-Factor (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 23 July 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. Davewild (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Island Pacific Energy[edit]

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

Local solar installation company: article consists of a promotional list of customers; references are local business publications that are not discriminating in the coverage and therefore unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is mostly fine, but it does have promotional tone to it, so should be made more neutral.Frmorrison (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted the article at AFC because the references looked fine. They look to be independently written, by multiple different people with signification coverage, matching WP:GNG. SO I would suggest that we keep it. Promotional tone could be changed by making this more like an encyclopedic article I suppose. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 13 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems okay. Search of a major newspapers national database gives 8 mentions in Honolulu - Star Advertiser, including "Business Briefs. Anonymous. Honolulu Star - Advertiser [Honolulu, Hawaii] 20 Aug 2011., which includes: "Honolulu-based Island Pacific Energy and two mainland companies were awarded a contract Friday worth up to $500 million to install solar power systems on Hawaii military installations. / The mainland companies are Pacific Energy Solutions, a division of ECC of Burlingame, Calif., and Photon Finance of Mountain View, Calif. The solar systems will be installed at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, Tripler Army Medical Center, Fort DeRussy and elsewhere. / "This contract will be the largest installation of photovoltaic solar energy facilities in Hawaii's history," said Island Pacific Energy President Joseph Saturnia." A bigger article in 2013, "Navy halts move for solar project on historic runway" Cole, William. Honolulu Star - Advertiser [Honolulu, Hawaii] 13 June 2013, describes the project more fully and gives www.dodhawaiisolarea.org as location for environmental assessment comments. Other brief mentions are about other installations and about hirings of various management staff, etc. --do ncr am 04:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, it's a bit "rah-rah" in tone, but that can be fixed in the normal editing process. They seem to have a lot of high-profile work. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 28 July 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 Vancouver School Board. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrisdale Annex[edit]

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

NN school that provides education for children grades K-3. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vancouver School Board per SOP. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vancouver School Board per longstanding practice documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and justified by the fact that redirects are cheap and that, though not notable enough for a standalone article, useful information may be imparted by a different one. BethNaught (talk) 15:12, 28 July 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adreno[edit]

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

Nominating this article on behalf of an editor with a potential conflict of interest, per a request on my talk page. The rationale is as follows: While quality source material exists in engineering trades such as Electronic Engineering Times [9][10][11][12][13] and Electronic Design News[14], in none of these sources is Adreno the subject of the article as required by GNG. Rather the sources are about Snapdragon (system on chip), which Adreno is a component of and where content about Adreno would be better suited. I suggest an AfD, rather than Merge, because most of the material on the Adreno page is not appropriate for Wikipedia (original research, extensive spec-sheets, crystal ball, etc.) such that practically speaking the content itself should be removed, rather than moved to a different page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Googling Adreno review brings up hits to Anandtech,^[1] Tom's Hardware^[2] and NotebookCheck.^[3] FRF has a good point that articles focusing on the Snapdragon processor are unlikely to establish the notability of the GPU it uses. These articles, though, are focused on the GPU performance, and provide a sufficient foundation on which to build a decent article. I see that the Notebook Check cite has pointers to reviews of older Adreno models; I suspect the same will be true for other hardware enthusiast sites. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Smith, Ryan (23 June 2014). "Google I/O: Qualcomm Celebrates Launch of Adreno 420 GPU for Android Gaming". Anandtech. Retrieved 15 July 2014.
^ Ku, Andrew (10 Oct 2012). "Snapdragon S4 Pro: Krait And Adreno 320, Benchmarked". Tom's Hardware. Retrieved 15 July 2014.
^ ?. "Qualcomm Adreno 330". Notebook Check. Retrieved 15 July 2014. {{cite web}}: |author= has numeric name (help)

Keep I think it is about "I don't like it" and I don't see any reason to delete this useful article. --Faramarz^♚♔♚ 10:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GeForce, AMD Radeon and related articles are also "full of extensive spec-sheets" - do we have to delete them as well? The article probably needs better sources, but I would refrain from removing the specs until there is a sustainable indication that they are outright erroneous. --128.72.10.182 (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Overgate Centre. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City House, Dundee[edit]

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

No assertion of notability in article and can find nothing. Just another concrete box. TheLongTone (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's part of Overgate Centre so merge is a possibility, if there are sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Overgate Centre. Regardless of independent notability (which seems completely lacking), the two short sentences of this stub can easily be accommodated in the larger article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Capitals[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism created by a non-notable group, easily failing WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides having no secondary sources, this article could be expressed in one sentence: "The Forum for the Future lists five capitals as important for sustainable development: Natural capital, Social capital, Human capital, Manufactured capital, Financial capital." Unless some controversy arises over the concept itself this would be better as one sentence in Sustainable development. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question of merge there or just delete depends on what people think of the source. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a marketing buzzword created by development consultants, that doesn't seem to have caught on anywhere else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Suburban Faith Based Peace Coalition[edit]

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

no evidence of any notability outside of Chicagoland, so it fails WP:ORG John from Idegon (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is some evidence of notability outside of Chicago. For instance, this particular NGO has been recently noted in the US Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r113:E18AP3-0011:/) and an engine-search for this particular NGO reveals some 17,000 entries, many of which are peace NGOs, which are organized on a national and international basis. The name for this NGO is perhaps unfortunate, as it suggests a parochial organization, with limited reach. But I would suggest the reach and notability of the WSFBPC does indeed go well beyond its local Chicago base. I should mention in passing that I am in Australia, and not a member of the WSFBPC. I suggest we hasten slowly on any deletion action. J.S.Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamessmithpage (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link you posted has a mention of the organization, but no details so it does not speak at all to notability. The subject of the politician's pontification was not even the organization. I have a question for Jamessmithpage. What is your relationship with the subject of this article? John from Idegon (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the statement from the local congressman confers any notability outside of Chicagoland.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:12, 23 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with TonyTheTiger - an endorsement from a local politician doesn't being to meet notability. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf Astoria Berlin[edit]

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

Claim of notability does not seem credible, and the article was created by a seemingly connected author, and seems like an advert. Prod removed by author, so moving on to AfD. Benboy00 (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Zoofenster, the building that in large part consists of the hotel. de:Zoofenster contains information on the planning and construction history of the building and also a bit on the hotel, including this usable reference. There is no compelling reason for a separate article, but the hotel name is a plausible search term. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There aren't that many five-star hotels in the world and we do usually have articles on them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, actually there are quite a lot of hotels. This page from 2010 says that there are 2200 rated by this organisation alone. Considering that the number of hotels they rate as 5 star increases every year, and this is only one of several rating organisations, it seems unlikely that we do have articles on more than 50% of them. That said, we should probably be following notability guidelines (WP:NOTE), rather than pointing at other pages (WP:OSE). This hotel does not seem notable on its own because it does not have significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. I think Yngvadottir has a good point, as the hotel is a large part of the building. Benboy00 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if there are 2,200 five-star hotels in the world (and since at least two of the hotels on that website's front page are actually four-star I take leave to doubt it's a terribly reliable source - it seems to be a commercial and promotional organisation as opposed to a neutral star-assigning organisation), that's only a very tiny proportion of the total hotels in the world, and since Wikipedia is growing all the time the fact that we don't yet have articles on all of them means nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is why I pointed to WP:OSE. Also, The fact that there is no single accepted worldwide star rating for hotels hinders any star based argument. Which is why I think we should use notability guidelines (like I said). Benboy00 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - OSE is only relevant if there isn't a good reason to keep an article except for OSE. In this case, I don't believe that is true. I happen to believe that five-star hotels are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Believing something is inherently notable doesn't make it so. Do you have any policy based reasoning behind your belief? Benboy00 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        How many times does it need to be pointed out to overly rules-bound editors that afds are discussion forums and are not governed by bureaucracy? Opinions do count here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Just saying "thats my opinion" is not useful. AFD's should not (and indeed, are not) based on opinion, they are based on discussion, which is normally based around guidelines and policies. You have to argue "why" you feel that five star hotels are inherently notable, otherwise its not a discussion, its just a shouting match. So far, your argument seems to have been "there arent many of them and wikipedia is growing all the time" and then you just basically said "I dont care what wikipedia says, i think they are always notable". Benboy00 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I suggest you look at my userpage before you try to tell me how Wikipedia works. I've been here a long time and I've contributed to thousands of afd discussions. I know how it works. You do know that we are Wikipedia don't you? We make Wikipedia. It doesn't make itself. So saying I don't care what "Wikipedia" says is frankly a pretty stupid comment. We decide what is notable and what isn't. We do that through discussion on various fora, one of which is afd. I've given my opinion. End of story. It's up to the closer now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but you are not a "we" and you are not wikipedia. You are a very small part of wikipedias huge user base, and the fact remains that you haven't actually given any real reasoning against deletion, you have just said "I think x, because that is my opinion". I think ducks are fish because that is my opinion, but that doesn't make it valid. The appeal to authority that you seem to be going for is not valid. Benboy00 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on some searching, I think this passes GNG; I added a couple of sources (from CNN and The Scotsman).--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 26 July 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. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Henley[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no substantive claim of passing WP:NMUSIC, and relying almost entirely on promotional primary sources (Bandcamp, CDBaby, etc.) for "referencing" — the only real references here are from local community weekly newspapers in the vicinity of his own hometown, with no evidence of substantive non-local coverage. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 8 July 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of any notability, Although I wouldn't object to it being recreated once she either becomes widely known or a concrete source. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:24, 23 July 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. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Houses in Poland[edit]

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

This article is not Encyclopedic, has no reliable sources and is incomplete. This has been the status for years. OpenFuture (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article is uncyclopediac. It is incomplete, and basically copied from a website. EMachine03 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to a more suitable title, say Residential architecture in Poland. There may be some issues with the article (site owner's permission is claimed, but that should be confirmed through OTRS and may not directly imply a free license; on the other hand, no proof of copyvio has been provided either), but it's a valid encyclopedic topic and the article looks like a promising start. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. I wrote the above before I could find the original text at [15]. I can now see that it's an almost word for word and no actual proof of site owner's permission has been produced. So, per Mukkakukaku, I'm changing my position to delete now and undelete once a free license is secured. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep, but move to Residential architecture in Poland. Sorry for changing my mind back and forth, but I didn't notice the OTRS note on the talk page. I've now added an OTRS template on the article page itself, so it's more evident that permission has been granted. With the copyvio issue resolved, there is no further reason to delete. The article could use much improvement and (at the very least) a title change, but it's notable enough to keep. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~per Kpalion~~ - Although the entire site looks to have been copied - Words have been changed so it's not exactly word-to-word with the website, Nonetheless it is an encyclopedic topic, ~~Again I agree with Kpalion in that~~ Also the article should be renamed to Residential architecture in Poland or something similar ~~and this should be sent to OTRS~~ (Sent).

–Davey2010 • (talk) ~~14:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)~~ / 12:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article being of poor quality means it should be improved, not deleted. Topic is surely worth an article, although I agree it should be renamed. TheLongTone (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio is copyvio. Until the OTRS permissions go through, this article should be deleted. It can be un-deleted after permissions are secured, but as it stands right now none of it is not plagiarized. The topic itself probably meets the threshholds of notability, though a better title would not be amiss as indicated by other users above. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 03:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep -- With the addition of the {{ArticleOTRS}} template about 3 hours ago, it's safe to say it's not copy vio. It is WP:SELFPUBLISH, however, and needs a lot of work to get into an encyclopedic state. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 12:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @User:EMachine03, User:Kpalion, ~~User:Davey2010~~, User:Mukkakukaku. Am I missing something? There's an OTRS permission on the talk page... Yes, it is a bit promotional, so tag it with {{promotional}} and/or {{tone}} and move on. The topic is notable, and I'd support Kpalion's renaming idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The {{ArticleOTRS}} template wasn't added to the main page until about 3 hours ago. This is more than just promotional, it's blatant WP:SELFPUBLISH -- the creating contributor is the individual who owns the copied-from website. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 12:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this would be a reason to improve references, not to delete. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You're right. It just needs more work. EMachine03 (talk) 11:58, 24 July 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 01:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach Lions[edit]

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

Non notable IMO - not playing in one of the professional leagues as stipulated by WP:NGRIDIRON Gbawden (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject semi-pro team fails the applicable specific notability guidelines applicable to organizations (including sports teams) per WP:ORG, as well as the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:58, 29 July 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 01:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Boxing Commission International[edit]

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

Non-notable newly created boxing title (no events yet). The parent organization, Malta Boxing Commission, is also of questionable notability but not submitted for the moment. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I noticed that the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta_Boxing_Commission_International has been logged for possible deletion.

I noted that you had said that it is a new championship with no upcoming events - for reference the first titles will be competed for on Saturday August 2nd in London http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=7713&cat=boxer and http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=647191&cat=boxer

I hope that you can understand that this is a new championship and that you will allow us the time to develop the wiki page fully

Regards

Gianluca — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaDiCaro (talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your response on the Malta Boxing Commission International title.

For reference the title is actually promoted as the MBC International - perhaps how I've listed it should be changed to that to make that clear (not sure, just a thought)

I can now confirm that Mark Prince will be fighting Simas Svacina for the MBC International Cruiserweight title at York Hall on August 2nd

I can also confirm that Antonio Counihan will be challenging for the MBC International Lightweight title in Birmingham on September 13th and Marianne Marston will now be challenging Marianna Gulyas for the vacant MBC International Female Super Bantamweight title in London on October 25th

Plus we are in discussion with other promoters and expect at least another three titles contested for in 2014

So you can see it will not take long to be able to fully establish the page (-;

Kindest regards

Gianluca — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaDiCaro (talk • contribs) 11:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaDiCaro (talk • contribs)

Delete This is a newly created promotion that's promoting their first card. The only coverage of this organization is either self-promotion or routine sports coverage of this upcoming event. It lacks the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Also, the article was created by the organization's founder. Papaursa (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New organization that lacks the coverage required to meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Existing is not the same as notable. Routine coverage and promotion of their first event is not enough.Mdtemp (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with no significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 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. (WP:non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhenupureeswarar Temple (Madambakkam)[edit]

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

The article references nonexistent website. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 21:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see WP:BEFORE. A quick google book search confirms notability. See http://books.google.com/books?ei=0mrCU_aaHaS60wWhtICoAw&hl=en&id=W2pYAAAAMAAJ, p. 77, http://books.google.com/books?id=IUHkAAAAMAAJ, p. 163 , http://books.google.com/books?id=cfY9AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT50 --Soman (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources describe the temple, including the one on the page itself. It is embarrassing for Wikipedia that a temple like this has such a poor article and is even being considered for deletion. It really speaks to Wikipedia's systematic bias.--TM 11:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply a non notable temple, I can't find anything to justify keeping this article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per sources found below, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This detailed article in a national level newspaper should satisfy GNG and provide enough information to rewrite this article to at least stub level. Ancient Chola temple at Madambakkam. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC) I've added some additional information and refs at the article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It is a "1,000-year-old Chola" temple with coverage in books and newspapers [16].Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:52, 24 July 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 02:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Want To Talk about It (song)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a music recording that has not yet been released. Fails WP:NSONG. - Mr X 12:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (WP:TOOSOON). The only mentions I could find were on YouTube, Twitter and fansites/forums; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS at this time. Gongshow talk 04:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom and Gongshow. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:52, 26 July 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 02:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-Day Mennonites[edit]

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

WP:NRV Jonathan.robie (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seventh-Day_Mennonites

Especially:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seventh-Day_Mennonites#Who_are_the_Seventh_Day_Mennonites

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can find only one book reference for this, and it is a passing reference to what I must guess were the Seventh Day Dunkers who split off from the Ephrata Cloister. That's certainly not enough. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I agree that the book is describing the Seventh Day Dunkers, a group in the 1800s. The article seems to be implying that the name describes a group that exists now. I don't know what group that could be. Jonathan.robie (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does this group exist? If so, is it well known enough to justify an article? The article claims to describe a group called Seventh Day Mennonites, and implies that this is a group that exists today. It does not identify the group. I cannot identify the group. We were able to find one book reference that uses this term to describe the Seventh Day Dunkers, a group in the 1800s that is already described on a Wikipedia page. The page contains no references to identify a group with this name. As the article now makes plain, nearly all Mennonites observe Sunday as the day of worship. Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:18, 23 July 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 02:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Weekly newspaper[edit]

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

Shortlived smalltown newspaper whose only claim of notability — a per-copy circulation of 60,000, which would make it larger than some pretty major magazines — is unreferenced and unverifiable, along with everything else about the article. As always, publications are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they existed; I can find a lot of cursory mentions in directories, but no reliable sources that would properly support an encyclopedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 July 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, Davewild (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only directories and entries, just like millions of other newspapers. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another run of the mill weekly local newspaper. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 28 July 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Devn Cornish[edit]

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

Similar to other LDS general authority articles that have been deleted: a general lack of significant coverage anywhere and most of the info is ripped from LDS sources that aren't independent enough to establish notability. Would note that none of these type of articles on Second Quorom figures has been definitively closed as keep. p b p 13:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on the membership in the LDS Second Quorum of the Seventy of the individual. Please see my comments on this issue here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen for justification for my position. Vojen (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we just ignore GNG? p bp 23:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. With all due respect to Jgstokes' vote of confidence below, that is exactly what I am saying. The GNG is a default standard for notability when NO OTHER basis for notability exists. The guidelines for the Notability of People governs this decision. The decision here needs to be based on whether the office of a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy is comparable to that of a Catholic bishop, which I believe to be the case. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk for a more thorough explanation of why I believe this is the appropriate standard for deciding this case, and why I think these individuals meet this standard. Vojen (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vojen:, lemme stop you right there. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Notability (people) that references bishops, or religious leaders of any kind. p b p 14:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You’re absolutely right, and I addressed that in my primary argument that I already made reference to here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk. I said: “Though not a codified standard, the de facto standard that is derived from the codified rules is that high-ranking clergy are generally found to be notable. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy.”

To elaborate on this point, at the most basic level one could consider being elevated to a high ecclesiastical office as a great honor. See the Any biography section of the notability for people standards which states: “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.”

However, being elevated to a high ecclesiastical office could also be compared to a weird combination of politician and academic. Members of this group have quasi-executive, legislative, and judicial powers. The political power is primarily one of influence (with the threat of eternal punishment for failure to comply), but insomuch as believers actually give credance to the orders, the power is significant. And in many countries these powers are explicitly accounted for in the law of the land, particularly with respect to issues of family law. Hence separate courts for Muslims and Christians in many traditionally Islamic nations. This makes their office similar to that of a politician.

They are also similar to academics, so those standards (see Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)) can also be looked to as a source for this derived de facto standard. The office itself makes them an automatic authority in matters of theology. This is true in the Catholic church, but this is especially true in the LDS church, where the higher emphasis on continuing revelation and the priesthood line of authority makes General Authorities spokesmen for God and their statements very influential if not binding in theological matters and doctrinal disputes, thus leading Mormons to hold their every word and act in such high regard, and making them high-level targets for critics of the LDS church. Sources in my other referenced post demonstrate this point.

Two notes from the Academic standards: “Academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements.” These men may have spent most of their professional careers in the secular world, but they are known for their work in the field of theology. Also, an academic is considered notable if “the person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association”. The work and mission of the Second Quorum of the Seventy is fairly academic in nature (the LDS scriptures state: “The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling. And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.” See the LDS Doctrine & Covenants 107:25-26.) The role is largely a teaching role (similar to academics), the group is definitely selective and it’s pretty prestigious.

Again, high level clergy are not per se politicians or academics in the proper sense, but because of the similarities in how they are viewed and respected in society, a de facto standard seems to have arisen that high level clergy are in fact notable. A definitive codified standard would be nice, but it’s not necessary. The question in most cases is not whether high level ecclesiastic office is notable, but how high a level qualifies.

Vojen (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe that Vojen is saying we should ignore GNG. Rather, I believe he is suggesting a different way to look at those that are being nominated for deletion, offering an invitation, if you like, for us to think this through thoroughly before we do something we might later regret. I for one think that Vojen has presented a well-reasoned argument with very valid points that need to be considered. I still believe we do articles an injustice when we nominate them for deletion before attempting to fix the issues that arise with them. I do believe that issues of concern can and should be addressed, but not by deletion discussions. Rather let us seek ways to improve the articles. This is not the place to discuss article issues. If anyone has anything they want to discuss in that regard, please post on the talk page. In the meantime, I would again encourage a respectful discourse and discussion about this very important issue of whether or not an article deserves to be kept. I think it can and should be given a chance to be made better. But I recognize I may be in the minority. This will likely be my only comment on this issue. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per very well reasoned arguments of Vojen. I could not have said it better myself, so I won't try.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 23 July 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lens Culture[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline on "significant coverage" - the sources given are two short appearances in list articles (one of them a sentence long, the other two sentences) and a WSJ journalist briefly mentioning having met the magazine's editor. McGeddon (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anyone can see that it fails WP:GNG, and it really needs more significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMachine03 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing what can be done by working on it and seeing if enough of a demonstration of notabiltiy can be found in the process. -Lopifalko (talk)

Keep. Admittedly, not a lot of reliable sources cite it, but I believe that, with the recent work on the article, it now demonstrates enough reliably cited notability to justify keeping. The inclusion of Lens Culture by The Independent and Guardian in their short lists of recommendations, is significant, and they are undeniably good citings - in British photography circles, Sean O'Hagan is in my opinion the most notable photography critic. There are also other reliable sources cited that amount to reason to keep in my opinion. Also, Lens Culture are the source / sponsor of a significant photography award that is worth having an article for in Wikipedia with which to tie other photography relaated articles into, in lists of awards people have received. I have been through all the Wikipedia articles that cite Lens Culture and there are many, showing relevance within the world of photography and that it is useful in having an article to link to (whether that means anything or not in terms of Wikipedia notability policy, it is useful within the sphere of photography related editing that I perform). -Lopifalko (talk)

Good work, but the appearance in two sentence-length lists does not clear the bar of WP:ORGDEPTH, which says "Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide." The only other source we have for writing about the magazine is a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview with the founder/editor.

As for the magazine's awards, the sources we have are a sponsor talking about being "happy to support" the award, a festival saying how the magazine's editor is presenting some award winners at their event, and an Italian Huffington Post article discussing the 2014 winners. I would say that only this final source is strong enough to meet WP:RS, but not by itself enough to meet the expected multiple sources of WP:GNG. (Even with a second source, it's looking as if the awards may be more notable than the magazine.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the guideline does indeed say (in a footnote): "Inclusion in 'best of', 'top 100', and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide." However, there could be a difference between on the one hand inclusion in lists of one or more hundreds, and on the other inclusion in a list of a mere ten. Putting aside Lopifalko's opinion on O'Hagan's notability (sorry, Lopifalko), O'Hagan is the sole person to be identified as photography critic for The Guardian. (See the bottom right of this page -- and if you get to the page quickly, you'll have the pleasure of a link at its top left to the memorable, if photography-unrelated, title "Balls, vagina, or buttocks?".) And The Guardian is a newspaper of some note. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two list articles say - quoting them in full - "Lensculture features essays, slideshows, audio and visual interviews and incisive criticism, making it one of the most authoritative and wide-ranging sites." and "A definitive resource for anyone who wants to keep up with the latest trends and debates in contemporary photography. It features essays, reviews and interviews.". These are the only reliable sources we have that write about the magazine, and would only allow us to write the "very brief, incomplete stub" that WP:ORGDEPTH mentions as being just below the benchmark. --McGeddon (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is neither substantial nor much good. And yes, it has had a considerable input from somebody with a COI. (Well, conceivably, from an impersonator. But this seems unlikely; and for now I'll ignore this possibility.) The person with the COI has been upfront about who he is (see his user ID). As we all know, he would have been wise to stick to the talk page; but given that he did edit the article directly, I think he did so pretty well. This edit and its summary are particularly remarkable. The cynical may speculate that this was a last-ditch attempt to spare the article from deletion, but here's a series of edits from the same User ID, long predating the AfD, that perhaps could be bettered but that are far from the the attempts at aggrandizement often flagged by COI templates. Unlike the situations in which many AfDs arise, I don't worry that the person with the COI is going to turn the article that survives the process into an advert. ¶ Lens Culture (aka LensCulture or even Lensculture) has attracted very little attention from what we term reliable sources. But it has attracted some. And a person who has encountered the name somewhere will I think be helped by a short, straightforward en:Wikipedia article on the subject. In its current form the article has flaws but nothing so major as to call for deletion; and (of course putting aside the kinds of vandalism and stupidity that can hit any article) I think it's unlikely that it will be problematic in the future. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 24 July 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. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randy D. Funk[edit]

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

Similar to other LDS general authority articles that have been deleted: a general lack of significant coverage anywhere and most of the info is ripped from LDS sources that aren't independent enough to establish notability. Would note that none of these type of articles on Second Quorom figures has been definitively closed as keep. p b p 13:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I really feel like we need a bright line rule as to which members of the LDS hierarchy are notable because of the office they hold and which would require additional material to be considered notable. It looks like there has been a number of requests to delete articles for members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, most of which end in Deletion, and the last of which was inconclusive. I wrote a response to the last one, but unfortunately I appear to have joined the discussion too late in the debate, as no one responded to my suggestion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilford_W._Andersen for my original proposal.

The gist of my argument is that the common factor among the articles being cited for deletion is that the only notable feature of these individuals is that they are members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. After looking into the issues, I personally feel that the fact these individuals hold a sufficiently high position of authority in the LDS church is in and of itself sufficient to establish notability. Before you say this is not an acceptable standard and that Wikipedia requires notability purely based on the sources, hear me out. The primary complaint from advocates that the articles be deleted is that lack of independent sources. The existence of independent sources is a strong indicator of notability, but it is not absolutely required. There is a long standing exception for politicians and a de facto exception for Catholic Bishops. Members of the press typically gets a pass on this issue. (See for example Melissa Block, Corey Flintoff, Steve Inskeep, Bob Mondello, Guy Raz, Craig Windham and much of the other NPR personalities. They're millions of Americans who probably listen to these people every day, including myself, but there aren't always many non-NPR sources to prove their notability.) Sometimes notability can be established without independent sources. The problem in these cases isn’t notability, but verifiability.

As this specific request relates to Randy D. Funk, let’s use him as an example of why a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy is notable based on his office and nothing more.

Randy D. Funk, Esquire’s professional career was probably a great career, but not particularly notable (at least not up to the Wikipedia standard). He was a partner in a law firm, but this would not make anyone notable in and of itself, and is unlikely to make someone the object of international renown or distain unless he was involved in a very notable case.

President Randy D. Funk’s service as an LDS mission president in India is more notable, but statements by mission presidents are generally not recorded for wide distribution (sometimes missions will maintain local mission newsletters, but these are generally only distributed locally to missionaries serving in the mission or sometimes to members living in the mission, and rarely generate wider attention than by those closely connected to the mission country.

However, Elder Randy D. Funk’s status as a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy (the act that made him a General Authority) immediately made him a topic of interest by people around the world both favorable to and antagonistic to the LDS church. This event took place in April 2013, and we immediately see his name start to appear in sources around the world. I would argue that the office and the office alone is what makes him the subject of favor and disregard. Here are some sources to support that claim:

German

http://www.presse-mormonen.de/artikel/berufungen-entlassungen-generalkonferenz-april-2013 (LDS Source)

Portuguese

http://noticiassudnordestesnb.blogspot.com/2013/04/anunciadas-novas-autoridades-gerais-e.html (Independent Source)

Spanish

http://zonamormon.wordpress.com/page/26/ (Independent Source)

English

https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-randy-d-funk-trust-in-the-lord-and-his-goodness?lang=eng (LDS Source)
http://jrcls.org/news/item.php?num=6376 (an independent society affiliated with a church-owned school)
http://eldersethbarrus.blogspot.com/2013/05/elder-funks-visit-and-more-pictures.html (Missionary blog independent of LDS church oversight – expressing awe and admiration of Elder Funk because he is a General Authority. The office alone serves the purpose of making him an object of veneration. The fact that Elder Funk spoke some Indonesian sweetened the deal, but was not the deciding factor as his Indonesian was clearly rusty.)
http://www.ldstoday.com/home/search.php?search=elder&x=0&y=0&from=www.Presearcher.com&visit=www.WHAK.com (Independent Source)
http://mormonvoices.org/2433/7-april-2013 (Independent Source)

Then Elder Funk was invited to speak in General Conference. He was already a topic of international discussion and even admiration by virtue of his office and nothing else, but the General Conference talks are where these guys really start to get attention.

English

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/called-of-him-to-declare-his-word?lang=eng (Actual talk)
http://www.millennialstar.org/notes-from-general-conference-priesthood-session/ (Independent LDS Blog giving conference highlights, including summary of Elder Funk’s talk)
http://mormono.com/most-popular-oct-2013-general-conference-talks/ (Independent source analysis of Elder Funk’s talk based on Facebook likes)
http://universe.byu.edu/2013/10/05/priesthood-session-of-183rd-semiannual-general-conference/ (Independent student newspaper at church-affiliated school summarizing Elder Funk’s talk)
http://think-on-and-on.blogspot.com/ (Independent source assessing Top 10 ideas to come out of the Priesthood Session of General Conference, two of which [#3 & #4] come from Elder Funk)
http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/tag/book-of-mormon/ (Independent critic of Mormonism lamenting the fact that he didn’t get to write the response to Elder Funk’s conference talk)
http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/2013/10/10/general-conference-october-2013-priesthood-session-review/ (Independent critic of Mormonism responding to Elder Funk’s conference talk “Certainly, the Bible teaches us the discipline of discipleship but, while Mormons ‘strive to be worthy to return to Heavenly Father,’ a Christian knows he is already accepted by God through Christ (Romans 8:1; Hebrews 4:14-16) and it is the new nature, what the Christian has become and is becoming that is the motivation to obedience and spiritual growth.”
http://lds.net/forums/topic/50943-randy-d-funk-priesthood-session/ (Independent source notes from Elder Funk’s talk)
http://www.ivyting.com/2013/12/taiwan-taichung-mission-week-23.html (Independent missionary blog explaining how Elder Funk’s talk had been made the basis for an assignment all missionaries were asked to work on prior to Elder Funk’s visit to the mission on an official mission tour – demonstrates the authority embodied in Elder Funk [again, by virtue of the office] such that both the missionaries and mission president wanted to impress him).
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1043222,1043222 (Independent critic of Elder Funk’s conference address providing notes in a generally denigrating and sarcastic tone, including parenthetical to a claim of revelation in assigning mission calls: “I thought the computer did the work?”)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/approachingjustice/2013/10/05/priesthood-session-open-thread-televised-edition-ldsconf-twitterverse/ (Independent notes from general conference including notes on Elder Funk’s talk)
http://jacobheiner.blogspot.com/2014/01/january-20-2014.html (Independent missionary blog expressing excitement about getting to see Elder Funk speak at a fireside. An event where missionaries leave their areas like this is fairly rare, but a General Authority visit justifies it).
http://www.mormonmissionprep.com/recommended-reading/lds-talks-on-missionary-work/ (Independent source identifying Elder Funk’s talk as one of the more recent talks on the topic of Missionary Preparation.)

Portuguese

http://zh.scribd.com/doc/217987511/2013-11-00-liahona-por (non-LDS source for a copy of original talk in Portuguese)
http://www.simplesatitude.com.br/index.php/38-google-debuts-art-talks-series-to-reveal-stories-behind-masterpieces-2 (Independent homiletic piece that quotes Elder Funk’s conference address)
http://familia.com.br/o-senhor-faz-sua-parte-como-fazer-a-nossa (Independent homiletic piece that quotes a different part of Elder Funk’s conference address – interestingly this uses an unauthorized translation, suggesting it was either pulled from what the interpreter said before the official translation was made available, or the author translated it herself)
http://www.jornalaopiniao.com/familia-o-senhor-faz-sua-parte-como-fazer-a-nossa (reproduction of the above piece by a Catholic who removed the reference to Elder Funk, but kept the quote, in order to promote what he deemed good values without acknowledging the explicit appeal to authority in the original LDS author’s piece. This actually demonstrates how important the office is to a Mormon in terms of establishing appeal to authority. Others not recognizing the authority are hesitant to acknowledge the source for fear of implicit acceptance, but otherwise are willing to let good ideas stand on their own.)

And then he gets one of the bigger assignments. He was asked to serve in the Asia Area Presidency:

English

http://lds.org.in/continually-holding-fast-to-the-iron-rod (LDS source - homiletic piece written by Elder Funk in his role as a member of the Area Presidency to be shared with all of the church members in the Asia Area, including India, Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong, etc.)
http://taiwantaichungmission.blogspot.com/2014_02_01_archive.html (recognition by a mission president of training to be received by Elder Funk in his capacity as a counselor in the Asia Area Presidency)
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865606234/New-stake-presidents.html?pg=all (LDS subsidiary newspaper showing Elder Funk creating new stake in Cambodia [roughly the equivalent of a Catholic Diocese] -- probably the biggest event that can happen for a local LDS community short of building a temple. This is a power that has been delegated to Seventies. Elder Funk was likely specifically assigned to the task because he was in the Asia Area Presidency).

Spanish

http://www.elfaromormon.org/aumentando-en-belleza-y-fuerza-se-organizan-las-dos-primeras-estacas-en-camboya-2/ (independent source translation [probably violating copyright] of the announcement of Elder Funk’s role in the creation of the stake in Cambodia)

Other

Japanese

http://blog.goo.ne.jp/happy_life_realize/e/04328cf87792cd949dcb400392ac687a (Independent source reproducing a homiletic piece by Gerrit Gong, in which Elder Gong recognizes Elder Funk, among others, as the source of some of his ideas.)

Not shown in the above sources, but the interesting thing is that once someone becomes a General Authority, all of their actions before becoming General Authorities also come under heavy scrutiny, because General Authorities are supposed to be models of a good life their entire lives, and previous bad conduct makes the church susceptible to criticism. Generally these people have little in their past that would cause one to question their overall moral character (nothing appeared evident in researching Randy Funk, except for the actions of a different man by the same name in Iowa), but when anything is discovered it typically becomes the source of much discussion both in and outside of the church.

While I believe the above sources are more than adequate to demonstrate how Randy Funk's notability has changed as a result of his office (again, he's done nothing much more substantial than acquire the office), the problem with most of the above sources is that, with few exceptions (primarily the LDS sources), they would serve as very poor reference material for writing a decent article. The article would end up being a source dump in the reference section just to prove notability, and every article would require an in depth discussion on the talk pages about general attitudes of veneration and/or disregard for LDS General Authorities and the scrutiny their every act and word faces in general to prove the notability of each individually. That's why a standard approach to the office would be preferable.

Anyhow, I support keeping this article (and articles for all other members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy), but only by virtue of the fact that he holds the office. Nothing else that Funk has done makes him notable, so if the community decides to keep him, they should keep all of the members of the Second Quorum (and First Quorum), because they have similar claims to notability. If the community decides Funk’s office is insufficient of itself, then I see no reason to keep his article, and I doubt there will be many other Seventies who pass the notability standard, as most lead relatively low profile lives prior to the call.

Vojen (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vojen:, for starters, TLDR. Your comment was over 13,000 characters long. And even being that long, it doesn't make a convincing case for keeping the article. It ignores GNG. Nearly all the sources provided are neither independent nor cover Funk significantly enough to justify keeping this article. p bp 23:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89:Apologies for the length. I didn’t realize there was an explicit standard on that point. I’ll see if I can come up with a shorter version to repost later (I don’t have time tonight.)

As a quick response to the charge of ignoring the GNG, the answer is YES, that’s exactly what I’m doing. Funk doesn’t qualify under GNG. However, a careful reading of Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability_(people) reveals that GNG is a default standard by which a presumption of notability can be created when NO OTHER basis for notability exists. However, when we are dealing with people, explicit exceptions to GNG have been carved out and two rules take precedence: Basic and Additional. If Basic fails, we look to Additional. If Additional also fails, then we look to GNG. Meeting any of the criteria is good enough for notability purposes. We are not required to meet Basic or GNG if one of the Additional criteria applies. Establishing notability this way eliminates the need for completely independent sources. See the articles for the NPR personalities I mentioned in my above vote for good examples where this has been the case.

The issue then becomes verifiability. The LDS sources are sufficiently removed from the control of the subject to constitute reliable sources, especially as the basis for notability would arise out of the church’s elevation of the individual to a particular church office, and a primary source whose very existence proves an element of the fact in question (i.e. a statement by said church to the same, or the general conference address deomonstrating the individual's assumption of the office) is sufficiently reliable to prove the notability even if not completely independent. The guidelines for people notability state that an article may still need to be merged with another article due to insufficient sources that can provide verifiability, but we can verify the fact in these cases through reliable sources.

It's true that a good article will be well researched and meet GNG anyway, but that is a secondary question not pertinent to deletion in the case of people when notability is established under the Additional people criteria. I never claimed these were good articles, but the appropriate response is to put notices asking for additional independent sources, as was done for most of the articles for members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, as well as for some of the NPR people mentioned before (e.g. the Craig Windham article has the one source tag and should probably get the third party tag, but these are separate issues from notability for people as there is an explicit journalist exception).

Not to reiterate too many of my arguments that you didn't read (again, sorry for the length), but the guidelines for people explicitly provide a much lower threshold for politicians, academics, journalists, and winners of awards than do the GNG. Though not a codified standard, the de facto standard that is derived from the codified rules is that high-ranking clergy are generally found to be notable, and there are specific guidelines in place for the Catholic hierarchy that reflect this. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Clergy and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/Notability_guide#People. The sources I reference were not to prove that Funk meets GNG (I don’t think he does), but to demonstrate that his office serves as the basis for notability. Any finding of notability will arise out of whether we determine his office is comparable to that of a Catholic Bishop. In reality I think statements by him are subjected to greater attention, veneration, and critical scrutiny than that of most Catholic bishops, which is what I tried to establish with my sources above (pay particular attention to the critics and the homilies that cite him). That is why I voted Keep. The answer of whether the office is the equivalent to a Catholic bishop is where this discussion should be decided, not GNG.

Vojen (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found Vojen's argument on Wilford W. Andersen's page to be well thought out and well reasoned. I understand the concerns about GNG, but Funk has received international coverage, and I don't think that's something we can ignore. Additionally, I still maintain that we do articles a great disservice when we quickly move to delete an article rather than taking the time and care that should be taken to make it better and resolve issues of concern. To me, a nomination for deletion should be a last resort only implemented when all other efforts to improve an article have failed. To do less than this is to not give what could potentially become a very good article a sporting chance. And that's not the Wikipedia way. I urge all concerned to follow Wikipedia policy and discuss article issues thoroughly to get them resolved before attempting to nominate them for deletion. If this cannot happen, then I at least plead for civil discourse as we discuss potentially deleting such articles, if it must be done. This will likely be my only comment on this issue. I have no desire to engage in debate. But I will be watching this discussion closely to see what the outcome will be. To all who participate, I wish you well. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been live for months and it hasn't been sourced. As for "having the potential to be a very good article", there's no way it's getting to FA or GA with the URLs Vojen scraped. It doesn't even pass GNG with those sources! For all your "urging people to follow policy", you're the quickest to ignore it. p b p 03:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that my previous comment would likely be my only one on this issue, and it will be. I am not here to comment on the issue of deletion of this article. I am here to comment on something else. What's with the personal attacks? The fact is that I always assume good faith. However, from your last comment, Purplebackpack89, it is obvious that you are not assuming good faith on my part and are instead stooping to personally attacking me. You should know that doing so is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and if you continue to not assume good faith on my part and attack me, I won't hesitate to report your misconduct to the administrators. I leave this with you to reflect upon and consider. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgstokes:, That's not a personal attack nor an assumption of bad faith, but go ahead and report it to ANI if you want. I'll just counter-report you for creating bad articles and voting without regard to policy. p b p 13:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow guys. Really?

First off, pbp, you don’t have to be so snarky. Jgstokes has a valid basis in the rules to vote the way he does. Even under GNG, I provided 30 different sources, 25 of which are independent, and six of which mention Funk specifically in a way that could be construed to meet the GNG criteria. I don’t think it’s good enough (as I pointed out I think the standard for review should be different in this case), but someone can vote that way in good faith without ignoring the rules. Also, the GNG rules explicitly state the sources don’t have to be in the article at the time of creation, just that they have to be provided when notability had been challenged in a proceeding like this one. Done.

Second, an article doesn’t have to have the potential to be a FA or GA to be notable. There are plenty of bad/weak articles that need work and may never get there (probably most of Wikipedia), but are nonetheless valid. I have a couple pet project articles that I’ve been working on little by little over several years. None of them are up to GA or FA status because I don’t have the time or resources and no one else is volunteering. They may never get there, but I can always be hopeful.

Jgstokes, you’re way TOO sensitive. I appreciate your desire to be non-confrontational, but I think you set yourself up for easy hits. You need to learn to roll with the punches. This is an AfD debate. That’s it. I appreciate your support, but whatever the outcome, it’s not that big a deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojen (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Vojen's demonstration of wide-spread, international coverage of Funk.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say that to assume that article will never reach FA status is to assume too many unknowable things. Much can happen in the coming years that could allow the article to go there. Never assume anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 26 July 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. SpinningSpark 14:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's Alive (Buckethead album)[edit]

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

One of many Buckethead albums with nothing but a tracklist and some links to his own site. There are two user/fan-submitted reviews on Sputnikmusic ("our favorite guitar wizard"), a moderately acceptable source--but these reviews weren't written by staff writers. IP keeps reverting the redirect without doing any of the leg work; at any rate, I can't find more reliable reviews to indicate notability. I'm looking for a redirect. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that many Buckethead albums may not very be notable. However, I oppose the simple removing of the articles for organization reasons. First removing articles breaks the various Buckethead info boxes. While this is not a reason to keep the articles themselves it is a reason to do the removal in a more organized manner. Second, as the anonymous reverter pointed out on Drmies talk page, WP:NALBUMS suggests merging track lists into main articles where space permits. However, Buckethead's prodigious discography precludes such a course of action. Perhaps, each year of Pike releases should have their own article instead of giving each individual album a page. Merge. --SelfStudyBuddy^TALK-- 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, sure--but need we count how many of his tracks are called "Track 1"? Or, is it that important that 100 tracklists of albums that are not by themselves notable should be represented? One may well ask why a tracklist of a non-notable album is notable enough. I am all for finding a way to represent that which has real encyclopedic value, but not deleting because it disrupts a clickable chronology, that's not a very good reason. It's the total opposite of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and equally bad. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally like to have all albums with their respective pages. Even though information seems sparse, that is all we can get. Furthermore, this album would be ideal to keep as it was the first instalment of the Buckethead Pikes series and it introduced all the characteristics of the series which is running incredibly fast with almost 60 albums in 2 years. However, i do understand the reason why it could be deleted. So i propose the following. For very obvious reasons we can't merge the current 68 albums into a single page. The length of it would be quite insane. I propose then that we do merge all the albums from the Buckethead Pikes series into blocks of 10 albums (a page per 10 albums) and compile all the information there with their respective covers, information, and so on. An example i like to give is that of Merzbow's "13 Japanese Birds" who had a series of 13 albums in a box set but released independently as well. This being said, the only album that should be excempt from this massive merging is "3 Foot Clearance". Pachon (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merge. I agree with Pachon 10 albums per page seems reasonable. 128.226.67.180 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Please note edit history of IP. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the album is not notable, merging a track list is not even necessary. If the album had some notability yet the article was nothing more than a track list, a merge of the track list might be warranted. Anyway, WP:NALBUMS says "album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." That doesn't necessarily mean the track listings have to be merged into the main article. Merge what's important and add an external link to where the track list can be found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way in which we can make a functional and relevant page for the Pikes series, because i would really like to implement the 10 album page as i think as a bunch, they have some relevance.Pachon (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please note their relevance by adding citations from reliable sources? The discography page should be enough since there is apparently no other coverage. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the face of it, if it doesn't meet WP:NALBUM then it shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is about listing notable items, and this album isn't one of them. FWIW, I could not find the artist on Billboard.com, either. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a later redirect: if someone has an article where the topic is mentioned, verified, and editorially appropriate j⚛e decker ^talk 17:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Primary Shan[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient page content to justify even a redirect. School also no longer exists as it was merged to another establishment 15 years ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 23 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:36, 31 July 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rutan & Tucker[edit]

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

Non-notable law firm. Run of the mill firm with citations indicating that they exist and do business, but little more. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can understand the nomination's citation of WP:MILL and ultimately I might agree. On the other hand, this is the biggest law firm in the nation's sixth largest county, and plenty of potential sources exist (for example, 292 hits at latimes.com) if one wants to dig through the mostly routine materials for more substantive content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's big, it has coverage in newspapers. It is "a player" with role in news that Wikipedia readers could well want to know about. Some coverage of its size and history and role in important cases and so on is appropriate. --do ncr am 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's worh keeping as it is a big firm in the area, with many media coverage on local, regional and national newspapers.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]

The firm is mentioned in a lot of many other sources, so I guess notability should not be an issue to this company. Rockencsh (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "mentioned in a lot of many other sources [sic]" is not the same as significant coverage in reliable sources. The links Rockencsh|Rockencsh has provided all represent mentions in passing (i.e. articles about other topics where the name Rutan & Tucker happens to pop up). This type of menion in passing is common for law firms, where their cases may receive some coverage. That makes the case notable, not the firm. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The point I would make about the first one of those four items above, [21], is that readers of that news article could be interested in looking up Rutan and Tucker, which apparently produced a study/paper about some coastal issue. If the Wikipedia article says that Rutan & Tucker is a big established law-firm, that's helpful in evaluating the study somewhat, the firm's name is behind it. (Feel free to insert lawyer joke here, the only good lawyer is a ...). Agree with WikiDan61 that the mention is not significant coverage about the firm itself. I am just saying again that an article on this topic would be helpful to have. And I tend to think some basic facts about the firm, such as number of lawyers or number of cases in some recent year, should be available and can be provided in a short article. --do ncr am 00:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Your argument appears to be that people will evaluate Rutan & Tucker's credibility based on the presence of their Wikipedia article, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The firm needs to be notable before we create the article, not because we create the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not on the presence of their Wikipedia article, but on what it says about the firm, based on reliable sources. I do believe the firm is wikipedia-notable; i rather assume it is because it is so large and there will be coverage about it. It would be nice if someone would go through 300 LATimes references and lots of Orange County Register references and so on, to add material to the article establishing notability to your and others' satisfaction, but I am rather confident that can be done. So we don't need to have this AFD.... Do you really believe this is not going to have adequate sources to satisfy even yourself? Anyhow, you can vote Delete and i can vote Keep based on our best expectations of what is really available (not just what is found and added to the article). Bye for now. --do ncr am 03:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i'd rather hear your belief before i share stuff easily found in a U.S. national newspapers database, but how about:

"A Rutan & Tucker century // The largest O.C. law firm envisions expanding beyond base of government clients during its next 100 years." Martinez, Brian. Orange County Register [Santa Ana, Calif] 21 Jan 2006: 1. That is a 602 word article. $80 million billings and 145 lawyers in 2005. Article includes a timeline illustration of firm from "1906 -- Alexander Wallace Rutan co-founds Daniels & Rutan, with offices in Santa Ana and Fullerton." to "2004 -- Public Law Center names Rutan & Tucker "Law Firm of the Year.""
A different account in 1991, "Firm likes its law orderly Rutan & Tucker rises to the top in Orange County through stability: [MORNING Edition], Gregg Zoroya:The Orange County Register. Orange County Register [Santa Ana, Calif] 13 Sep 1991: e01, is a 772 word article. It includes photo of partners and a graphic showing "average number of partners and associates during each calendar year (from 1967-1991)". Somewhat differently, it mentions Rutan going into practice in 1906 but dates the firm starting in 1936: "A.W. [Alexander Wallace Rutan], whose tuburculosis, contracted in his 50s, led him to take a 90-day leave from Orange County each year, joined forces with a retired Idaho judge, James B. Tucker, in 1936 to form Rutan & Tucker."
"Preview $25-Million Home for Rutan & Tucker: [Orange County Edition] Flagg, Michael. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Los Angeles, Calif] 10 May 1990: 6. 229 word article.

Done, about notability, really.... --do ncr am 04:02, 23 July 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 05:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though the nominator's comments are not far from the truth. The sources cited above confirm, "they exist and do business" but to me they confirm they have existed for quite some time and do big business with an often state or national focus. I would think this is the sort of law firm readers would expect us to have coverage of. We're not talking about an ice cream shop with 3 employees and just enough coverage to get them over the WP:CORPDEPTH line. It's a big firm with 150 attorneys and just enough coverage to get them over the WP:CORPDEPTH line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources mentioned above indicate notability. James500 (talk) 08:04, 23 July 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. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Society of American Silversmiths[edit]

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

This organization appears on many lists of organizations dealing with jewelcraft, metallurgy and the like, but I'm not finding substantial coverage in independent sources that would establish notability. The article looks A7-speediable in its current state and generally promotional (article creator is apparently the founder of the organization), but given that it's been around since 2007, taking to AfD instead. --Finngall ^talk 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Society has been in existence since 1989.

What We're All About

The Society of American Silversmiths is the go-to resource for anything related to the art and craft of silversmithing. SAS was founded in April 1989 as the nation's only organization dedicated to the preservation and promotion of silversmithing. Its Artisan members, those silversmiths who have been juried into the Society based on their outstanding technical and design skills, are provided with support, networking, and greater access to the market. Through its comprehensive Web site, SAS educates the public in silversmithing techniques, silver care, restoration & conservation, and the aesthetic value of this art form.

Another aim of SAS is to assist those students who have a strong interest in becoming silver artisans. With the aid of SAS and its many supplier discounts, students will be better prepared to start their lives as professional silversmiths upon graduation. In addition to an outstanding benefits package, all members have access to the Society's technical and marketing expertise and a unique referral service that commissions silver holloware, flatware, and sculpture from its Artisans. The archives contain Artisan resumes, over 1,400 slides, 400 photographs, and a maker's mark registry for identification.

Jeffrey Herman, Founder & Executive Director Society of American Silversmiths PO Box 786 West Warwick, RI 02893 800/339-0417, 401/461-6840 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Herman (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Society of Silversmiths may have existed earlier; the comment above was that the wikipedia article was created in 2007. --do ncr am 19:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tag the article in various ways instead, and maybe revisit later. The proscription Don't bite newbies applies. From what i can see, (see history at user Talk page and the User page) i am guessing that User:Jeffrey Herman edited early today on his User page in a promotional way, and then one editor reacted by giving notice and then deleting the page. The current User page was created later than the Talk page notice, perhaps with less promotion, it looks okay to me anyhow. And then another editor, seeing activity, looks at user contributions and nominates this Society of American Silversmiths page for deletion. This would be treating the editor badly. Tag the article with call for sourcing, give some welcome to the editor at his Talk page, comment at the Talk page of the article, instead. Wikipedia editorship shrinks because of all-negative treatment of new editors (and also because of bad treatment of experienced editors, but that's a different topic). --do ncr am 19:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, there is significant national news coverage, establishing Wikipedia-notability. For example:

"Silversmiths Strive to Leave Mark in More Than Metal: [Orange County Edition]", by LAURA VAN TUYL. Los Angeles Times, November 7, 1990. Quote from its abstract is: "To educate people about handmade silver and the range of forms it assumes, [Jeffrey Herman] has joined forces with the 93-year-old Society of Arts and Crafts in presenting "Reflections of the Past and Present: Contemporary American Silver," an exhibition of hand-wrought holloware and flatware that throws a spotlight on a dying art form. / The show assembles for the first time the work of 29 modern silversmiths who produce everything from traditional punch bowls to abstract sculpture. They've come together as the Society of American Silversmiths (SAS)-the first organization of its kind, Herman says. A total of 48 silversmiths belong to the group, founded last year by Herman himself."
"SILVER TREASURES ARTISANS ENHANCE BEAUTY OF JEWISH CEREMONY", Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, January 30, 1998, about a show titled "Artisans in Silver: Judaica Today", of 39 Jewish ritual works in traveling exhibit "organized and juried by the Society of American Silversmiths", then at the Treasure Room of the Carnegie Museum of Art, a 703 word article.
New York Times coverage of "Silversmiths Exhibit Wares in Boston", 11 Oct 1990: C.14
New York times notice of a juried exhibition during 1995-96, mentioned 26 Nov 1995: 13NJ.1, and also mentioned 21 Jan 1996: 1.

There's more. The society creates major shows. To the article creator, a list of major shows organized would be a good addition to the article. You should add references from external sources to the article, so that the society's Wikipedia notability is clear. --do ncr am 19:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that we should keep WP:BITE in mind more often in these situations.--Theredproject (talk) 13:43, 16 July 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 05:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, re-tag, and re-write per doncram's excellent thesis on the sources. The current tag on the article is incorrect as there is no "reference" section per se, only an external link. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. all j⚛e decker ^talk 17:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Alonzo[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Unferenced. One of a series of such boxers whose common thread is participation in a non-notable boxing reality show (The Next Great Champ) that bombed (the televised title match never made it to the air). Peter Rehse (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these boxers meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Some of them have as few as 1 pro fight and most of the articles have no sources except for a link to their fight record at boxrec. Papaursa (talk) 18:04, 19 July 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 05:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Agree with previous comments. None of these fighters meet NBOX or GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 14:48, 23 July 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. Sorry, if this had been a nominated as a BLPPROD it would have been deleted already. There has been ample time to add sources. However, it seems sources likely do exist so I would be willing to restore this to the draft namespace on request of anyone wishing to add reliable sources SpinningSpark 09:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tunzale Agaeva[edit]

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

effectively unsourced promotional BLP The Banner talk 18:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Promo article, No evidence of WP:Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and per User:Davey2010 above. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Weak Keep depending on the "Honored Artist" thing. Is there a good source for that? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Depending on Google Translate, it seems to confer the honour of Honored Artist to "Cain, daughter of Aghayeva Tunzala". The Banner talk 21:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't open the text but I understand it is the text of a law. The daughter thing must be related to Azerbaijani surname system, always comes like "surname, name, father's name, daughter (son) of". Donno. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve references and edit. The Russian article about her appears to be (as well as I can tell from Google Translate) well sourced. Google images for "Агаева, Тунзаля" and "Tünzalə Ağayeva " seem to indicate that she's a big deal to someone. Just because she's not well covered in English sources doesn't mean she's not notable. SchreiberBike talk 22:01, 19 July 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 05:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Honored Artist. --►Cekli 829 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as unreferenced BLP, of the two sources in the article, one of them is unreachable (times out) for me, and the other is az.wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. "Weak" because there may be other good sources available that are not in English, but in my mind this effectively unsourced bio should be deleted until such time as they can be presented. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Gilbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP article with no reliable sources whatsoever. BiH (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails WP:NOTABILITY. Lacks real WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 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 05:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If she was interviewed in that many reliable sources she'd be notable. Did anyone bother to search those locations mentioned in the article? Plus the Writer's Digest could be notable. Dream Focus 15:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC) I couldn't find the Guardian article at all, but perhaps they don't archive things from that far back. She is quoted in various other news sources, asked for her opinions as an expert in her field. Highbeam search shows three mentions of her book, brief reviews there. [22] I'm thinking she is probably notable. Dream Focus 12:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't entirely agree with the nomination – San Diego Magazine seems like a reliable source and could go some way to establishing notability. But notability requires multiple sources, and that piece is far from the standard we require of sources in BLPs. Google doesn't turn up any news articles, profiles, book reviews etc. that could be any use. I'd be surprised if any of the interviews mentioned, assuming they exist, were in any greater depth than the brief mention by CNBC cited in the lede. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Interviews with CNBC, San Diego Magazine gives indication of notability. I agree with Dream Focus, the subject was interviewed with notable media sources.Anishwiki12 (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She is quoted in various news sources. Highbeam search result, CNBC and other media sources gives indication of notablility. My decision will be keep. Ireneshih (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than sufficient refs. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DailyFX[edit]

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

Content with unreliable sources and PR coverage. On top of that a probably sockpuppetry by the creator and top contributors on this article. BiH (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at the very least, Merge & Redirect to FXCM, the sources don't seem unreliable to me and it seems to be a significant brand of a $600m publicly traded company. --Stormie (talk) 01:06, 22 July 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 05:55, 23 July 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. Two relistings, with no one advocating keeping the article. (If Stuart Bannerman or anyone else wants this userfied, just ask me.) Deor (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom E Morrison[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician sourced entirely to primary sources and offering not a shred of reliable source coverage. He might have a valid claim to passing WP:NMUSIC if the article were properly sourced — however, it is not the assertion of passing NMUSIC that gets a person past NMUSIC, but the quality of sourcing that can be provided to verify the assertion. Delete unless sourcing and notability can be beefed up to meet Wikipedia's inclusion and content standards. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seven sources provided, all useless to demonstrate notability, nothing RS in the lot. Found nothing useful in web searches. Does not appear to be even close. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 15 July 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 05:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I used were taken from internet links where I have included where possible. I am new to building up Wiki pages so am unsure as to how to make the page better than it is (other than including more information when I find it online)

The internet links are appreciated, but they they are not necessarily useful to make the case that this subject is notable and therefore makes for a worthwhile encyclopedia article. Please consult reliable sources for further guidance, and WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC for general and artist-specific guidelines on notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:34, 25 July 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Fashion Week[edit]

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

Borderline A7, borderline G11. Laun chba ller 22:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK and WP:EIEIO. Andrew (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For heavens' sake. Questionable notability, erring on an advert.--Laun chba ller 00:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It strikes me that Manchester is a major British city, with a VERY strong textiles manufacturing history and one of the top British fashion museums is located there (the Gallery of Costume at Platt Hall). The article could be less promotional, but on Google, I'm seeing a pretty high profile event with a lot of coverage (yes, this is probably because they have a good press team, but even so, the fact that it has received such wide-ranging promotion means it is in the public eye, and I see consistent ongoing coverage over the several years it's been running. While the individual articles may not be absolutely rock solid reliable sources, there are many that aren't definitely unreliable, and I see such a VERY high volume of coverage and mentions that it seems a pretty legit subject for an article. Rewrite it or stubify it, but I don't think delete is appropriate. At the absolute least, it is probably appropriate for merger to a new section in Culture of Manchester. Mabalu (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What categories should this article be in, relevant now so that we could compare this to others of its type. I see no Category:Fashion shows and no other possibilies. --do ncr am 22:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See London Fashion Week for relevant categories. Mabalu (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Mabalu, following that example i added Category:Fashion events in England and some other categories. Another in the category is Oxford Fashion Week, which is also sort of week. This Manchester article was apparently a modified version of that, it still had mention of "Oxford" where "Manchester" was meant (i fixed that). I dunno, it could be kept i guess:

Weak Keep, i guess. "No consensus" would be fine too. --do ncr am 23:23, 28 July 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 05:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Consensus. I can't make my own mind up so my thoughts have no consensus! Szzuk (talk) 07:25, 24 July 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoGo Penguin[edit]

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

Band with no substantive claim of passing WP:NMUSIC, ~~written in an advertorial tone and~~ citing only one album review for sourcing (which is not sufficient to constitute substantive coverage). No prejudice against recreation in the future if a good article can be written about them, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An anon IP editor introduced the promotional text largely copied from the group's website. I have reverted it as copyvio to a better sourced version. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the parts of my original nomination rationale which were impacted by that change. The reverted version still doesn't make a particularly strong claim of notability, however, and still isn't well sourced enough to demonstrate that the band has been the subject of substantive coverage — so I'm not prepared or willing to withdraw the entire nomination altogether. Bearcat (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BBC interview already cited, [Crack magazine] interview, [All about Jazz] album review, [Sage gateshead], [Bandonthewall] with quotes from the guardian, the mercury and the times, [The Telegraph], [London Jazz News] And on and on and on. This band are getting significant coverage all over the place SPACKlick (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specific reference to WP:NMUSIC,

1)Is satisfied with [The Guardian] and [The Telegraph] pieces. Both in depth, neither of them reprints of press releases.

2) Album has not charted although worth noting was on the worldwide jazz album of the year 2013. (nominated but did not win)

5) Label is at least 3 years old, with a couple of other acts, dubious notability although nat birchall gets a page on DE.Wikipedia

So I'm hanging my hat on 1), notable coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG let alone WP:NMUSIC

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 15 July 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 05:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs above need adding to the article or it is likely to go to afd again. Szzuk (talk) 07:31, 24 July 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. Claiming sources ought to exist is not an argument based in policy. There has been ample opportunity to put forward evidence of notability, but none has been forthcoming. No real benefit in keeping open any longer. SpinningSpark 17:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Alvarez[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable actor. The only sources are press releases, self-published sources, and closely connected sources. Fails all three criteria of WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I disagree with MrX's evaluation of Alvarez' notability and of the available sources. Given Alvarez' role in a major program on the Nickelodeon network, I suspect better sources are available if one looks hard enough. I found a number of interviews with Alvarez in independent sources. (Admittedly, these tend to be fan sites, but this was with just 2 minutes searching.) I have communicated with the article's author about the need for better sourcing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a bit of coverage, mainly interviews[23][24][25] but nothing very in-depth or authoritative. Doesn't meet WP:ACTOR: he has a reasonably big supporting role in one show, but WP:ACTOR requires multiple major roles or other distinctive achievements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 15 July 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 05:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I originally closed this as no consensus but the nom disagreed so relisted

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:23, 31 July 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. Twice relisted, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ansur[edit]

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

Non-notable band, unless anyone can find sources that suggests they are. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable band, and unlikely that they would ever become notable. Additionally, the only citation is a an example of Wikipedia citing itself. And from a talk page, no less.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 15 July 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 05:31, 23 July 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. Sources have been shown to exist, but there is no agreement amongst editors that those sources meet the standards required by the GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwang Sung Hwang[edit]

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

High rank does not guarantee notability nor does being an ITF officer. Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:MANOTE either.Mdtemp (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of mentions to his relationship with General Choi but notability is not inherited. Article has only one main source and he doesn't appear to meet WP:MANOTE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize if in the wrong place for comment. I agree in a martial art world with seemingly endless 10th & 9th degrees, high rank doesn't guarantee notability. However, when General Choi only promoted 6-7 people to ninth degree, that does make a "General Choi awarded 9th degree" pretty special. The issue with lack of references will be addressed this weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgkick (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep No indication that he meets WP:MANOTE. I would say it doesn't matter who awarded him his degree because that would imply that the notability derived from the presenter rather than the accomplishment itself. This strikes me as a contradiction to WP:NOTINHERITED. Tgkick already has stated that a 9th degree award itself doesn't imply notability. To show he's notable requires either showing he meets WP:MANOTE or that there is significant independent coverage in reliable sources about him that have nothing to do with his relationship to General Choi. Papaursa (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the two independent sources in the article (which are relisted multiple times thus giving an appearance of many sources), I found two other independent sources. They are the October 1995 issue of Tae Kwon Do Times where he talks about the ITF and the July 1997 issue of Tae Kwon Do & Korean Martial Arts. I think all of these sources combined are enough to change my vote to a weak keep. Papaursa (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria supporting notability In general, even if an artist is notable - if there is only one paragraph or so of material about them, then that should be included in the article about their style or school if that is notable,- redirects are cheap. If they are independently notable and the style is not, then do not create the article on the style but on them.

The style (ITF) has been noted. The point above says "one paragraph or so of material." Hardly the case, Grand Master Hwang is heavily discussed in Dr Kimms book on Taekwondo History. Amazingly enough, the book is about taekwondo history and Dr Kimm found reason to list Grand Master Hwang in about a dozen different places in the book. Dr Kimm is noted for publishing dozens of books that exhaustively cover various Korean arts and the founder of HanMuDo ^[1] In addition, Taekwondo Times Magazine (TKDT) and Totally Taekwondo Magazine (TTKD) found it worthwhile to put Grand Master Hwang on the cover of their magazine a total of three times (2 for TKDT and 1 for TTKD). Also listed in the memoirs of General Choi that I'm researching to give reference if worthwhile. According to Wiki, the "Criteria supporting deletion" is Only achievement seems to be that they teach an art... Typing in Grand Master Hwang (K-9-1) shows he's not a "one paragraph" kinda guy. ^[2]

This is about a man that was a key player in ITF and therefore in the art of Taekwondo/Tae Kwon Do/Taekwon-Do. Granted, and not arguing that rank, in and of itself, is of little consequence. Lord knows there's plenty of gorgeous certificates with high dahn/dan ranks and overflowing resumes that are absolutely worthless. However, this particular gentleman was a Captain in the South Korean Army and during the Vietnam Conflict, actually taught (in Vietnam) the Korean Tiger Division along with the Korean Army, US Army, US Marines, and Vietnamese Army. The Korean Tiger Division was known for being ferocious. ^[3]

He also graduated from the 1st ITF instructor's course and later traveled with and assisted General Choi worldwide with seminars. Ask yourself exactly how good, how technical would you have to be in order to be worthy of being the assistant during seminars?

He was the president of KATU which was a National Governing Body (NGB) for ITF in the USA with Grand Master Sereff over the USTF. Most everyone in the USA that is/was in ITF from 1974 to mid 2000's was a part of either KATU or USTF.

Not sure why the push to delete a page of the only gentleman to simultaneously hold five offices in International Taekwon-Do Federation (ITF) under the direction of General Choi and the man who was requested to be in the room when General Choi passed away and recorded his dying words for the world to know. ^[4]

I'll get those other references posted as soon as I confirm them. Thank you.~~tgkick~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgkick (talk • contribs) 04:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Mu_Do
^ https://www.google.com/search?q=grand+master+ks+hwang&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=kwang+sung+hwang+%28K-9-1
^ http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1966/05/30/BGY506060539/?s=reel
^ https://taekwondofuture.wordpress.com/tag/choi-hong-hi/

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 15 July 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 05:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I cannot verify any print references through Google books, they are either translated without notice or hoaxes. "Totally Taekwondo Magazine" seems like a net fanzine ([26] - "a downloadable PDF magazine"). Tae Kwon Do Times may be notable, but having one or two articles in a niche publication does not seem to satisfy WP:GNG "Significant coverage". This really needs a review from a Korean speaker, as more (reliable) sources may exist in Korean. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Tgkick has done a good job providing sources. Tae Kwon Do Times is the premier magazine for the sport, and to have a whole article on this person in it definitely indicates notability. I cannot understand Piotrus' objection to this as "niche". The place we expect to find reliable information on foo is in publications specialising in foo. No one would seriously object to a science or engineering article being based on science books; Martial Arts practitioners should be treated no differently. Not everyone notable is perpetually covered in national newspapers. I also do not think that Piotrus' really believes that any of the references are fake. I prefer to assume good faith. I think perhaps he means that, for instance, the source title Taekwondo History is a translation. That may be the case, and the reference should give the original title along with the English translation and an ISBN or other index (ISSN, OCLC etc) that would allow it to be located by other editors. However, that is something that can be dealt with by suitable inline tagging (or, God forbid, actually talking to the editor and asking). It is not grounds for deletion. SpinningSpark 18:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. At issue here is the subjective question of whether the region known as "Congo" should have an article describing its cultural and political heritage, in the fashion of Eastern Europe. This has been relisted often enough, and without any sign of consensus or progress towards consensus that I think we have to admit it's not going to happen. This should not be viewed as an endorsement of the current article content, and some good suggestions have been made in this discussion as to how that content might be improved upon. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congo (area)[edit]

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

This article is an unsourced mélange of different conceptions constituting a new term (contrary to WP:NOR). The map depicts a culturalist conception of “culture areas” by Herskovits, adapting conceptions by Bernhard Ankermann and Bernhard Struck, later adapted by Henry S. Wilson. However the Bakongo are only dominant in the very western part of this region. Because of colonial politics the word “Kongo”/“Congo”, originating from the Bakongo/the Kongo kingdom has been employed for various political territories and American and European anthropologists used it to designate “culture areas”, “Kulturkreise”. However, that does not mean that there is any close tie between these various regions and the Bakongo, the Bakongo do not constitute these terms. It is completely unclear what “Present-day Congolese regions” shall mean. Bakongo are still living in Angola, not only in Cabinda. Delete. Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Presently there is no Wikipedia article where we are talking about someone of Congolese origin in general terms. Without this Congolese (area) concept (we are not being very specific geographically as the general boundaries were always superfluous and changing over time), we are many times at a loss where to link for people of Congolese origin if we don't know which specific country he or she may be coming from. Let's say we are talking about a scientist, an academician, a music artist or a Congolese music band. These may be American or French or German of Congolese origin with no specific tie to any of the Congos of today.... This page, despite its deficiencies, which colleague Chricho ∀ wants to highlight, this article I am saying does provide quite adequately to my mind for this Congolese concept of Congolese general "origin" and "belongingness". This article certainly not about a specific "ethnic people" or a specific political / social / historic entity as like colleague Chricho ∀ wants to assert. This page is talking about general Congolese areas beyond ethnic and political / historic specific entities, an article that has its place and should remain to accommodate for a general Congolese belongingness. Congolese of the diaspora in say various European countries or the Americas or Asian countries would not, after leaving their country, or forming communities in Europe/Asia/Africa or for being born in these new countries for many generations would not identify specifically with say Republic of the Congo, or Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Cabinda (they might be highly critical and express great misgivings about them in strong terms), but would rather advocate "a Congolese" beyond those present-day entities. The concept of a "Congo area" where "Congolese people or peoples" generate or come from is the best way to describe the Congolese of the diaspora beyond ethnic, linguistic divides the present-day Congos or as a matter of fact some earlier historic Bakongo/the Kongo kingdom or others in the past would imply. Let us keep the article and develop in this sense rather than suggest deleting and going back to very specific present-day political areas created basically to cater for the European imperialistic past like zones of influence for France, Belgium or Portugal. Hopefully one day, all these will be alleviated in favour of one Congolese nation and state which all Congolese can proudly call their own Congo homeland. werldwayd (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is unspecifically called “Congolese” there is usually no connection at all to the notion of the Bakongo ethnic group as suggested by the article, but any citizens of DRC or RC or descendants are called “Congolese”. They are not called “Congolese” because of some inherent connection to the Bakongo, but just because of colonial history, where the word “Kongo” was used as a name for new states. In French Germans are called allemand, but this does not mean that Germany is the “historical living space” of the Alemanni. If you want to have an article describing how people “are talking about someone of Congolese origin” you need linguistic studies as sources investigating the usage of the word.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a platform for propagating your ideas of some “Congolese nationalism”. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no so-called "agenda" to propagate so-called "my ideas of some Congolese nationalism" and I quite resent that you imply my creation of the page was for this specific purpose. If this is the logic we will apply in you proposing deletion of "an agenda driven article", can we assume in equal measure of logic that your deletion request is sort of your agenda of "supressing Congolese nationalism" for example? Wikipedia is a community where we assume good faith in fellow editors. You may request deletion, but please don't insert ill-perceived notions into your comments of my actual intentions. As a matter of fact and of utility, we do categorically need a "geographical" notion of a Congolese presence beyond ethnicity and nationality (if any) despite your misgivings. In any case, the presence of Congolese in even ancient history is well-documented. We even have the Wikipedia article Early Congolese history where it explains the existence of Congolese far beyond what we have today. It's just that this specific article is about history, and all I attempted was to put some geographical understanding of the historic Congolese nation or group of nations / peoples. It would not have been appropriate to direct links of 21st century Congolese living in the United States or France or Germany to a historic page like Early Congolese history, that's all, thus the page I created which can be subject to further development and clean-up deemed necessary rather than deleting it once and for all. My argument is, the article can stay as it serves an important purpose, with further necessary clean-up and possible expansion of material rather than a deletion werldwayd (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my words were inappropriate. I do not want to speculate about your motivation to write the article, but reacted to your sentence “Hopefully one day, all these will be alleviated in favour of one Congolese nation and state which all Congolese can proudly call their own Congo homeland.”

The article Early Congolese history tries to describe history restricted to the Congo basin. There was no “Congolese presence” in this early history, but the presence of a multitude of cultures, people, peoples is today classified by some people using the term “Congolese”. There did not exist any “Congolese peoples” (supposing that we are not talking about Bakongo, but a wider term spreading (at least) over the whole Congo basin), not to mention a “Congolese nation”. Even in Europe nations are primarily an invention of the 18th and 19th century. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications. You do have considerable knowledge about these matters and your well-articulated points are well-received. I just wish there was more participation from other colleagues in this rather than a two way discussion between us two. Colleague Gene93k inviting more people from other interested groups is welcome. I would particularly be interested in colleagues from within the Congolese communities worldwide who could comment as well on this notion of "being Congolese" past and present and aspirations for a future. Clearly Congolese have linguistic as well as ethnic and cultural diversity, but what is that holds them together as Congolese or as an identity beyond politics and present borders? Even if this article does get deleted eventually, it is a clear possibility, we still would need some useful suggestions of how to indicate in various Wikipedia article the relationship of 20th and 21st century personalities of Congolese roots, plus music bands, artists, who identify as Congolese beyond present-day political borders or when in so many cases simply verifying which present-day Congo they supposedly come from cannot be ascertained. Next time the Congolese communities in our city do organize a cultural event, I will make sure to ask them some valid questions precisely about their being classified as Congolese and I will certainly show them the article (deleted or not) to get their opinion on it. werldwayd (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the links pointing to the article and for Dry (rapper) it seems to be actually difficult to find out what is meant by “Congolese”. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dry is a perfect case of what I am saying. Dry (actually Landry Delica) was born in France. But when he is asked his origin, he says I'm French of Congolese origin, probably because his parents were from Congo but they established long time ago in France. The question rises, but of which Congo? We would have no way of knowing... Perhaps one parent comes from one area, the other from another area. What is clear though is that he is of Congolese heritage and mentions this in his rap. Congo (area) is a very convenient article to link to as it is not bound by land or language restrictions and is more accommodating for all Congolese. Anges d'Afrik is a French afro-beat / afro-pop music collective of Congolese origin. They have names like Keva Keva, Stone Warley, Charnel Playboy and Manolo. All its members are Congolese but we don't know from where? Your guess is my guess. Check group 2 Bal for one. The editor there has given up and doesn't even link "Congolese origin" sentence to anything. In article Congolese American, US census, 3,886 people of Congolese descent were reported. Another 1,602 specified that they were descended from people from "Zaire" and less than 300 people indicated that they hailed from the Republic of Congo. The absolute majority didn't specify an area but just said he is of Congolese descent... Congolese people in France is an interesting read particularly as you go over the infobox names.... Frankly some of our editors do not bother much and at times would arbitrarily tie in some "Congolese" to Republic of the Congo some other Congolese to Democratic Republic of the Congo and sometimes leave it without any link. I am not saying all as some do check the "actual" country, but some others just use an area arbitrarily without verifying actually he is from where. In articles I am involved in I usually tie such people to the "Congo (area)", but don't touch other articles who have tied in for some reason to a specific area. I don't have details to confirm or deny, so I let them be. But you have to understand, we have at times no such assurance what is claimed is true of being from RC or DRC. Many such citations would be taken with some very deserved reservation at least, thus the need for a general term for what is termed "Congolese origin" particularly in the "Congolese world diaspora" which comes from all areas actually. And frankly they don't care once they are settled in Europe or the States. They are well and content with Congolese origin or Congolese descent with no attachment to a country and at many times, clearly resenting the actual Congolese political leaders and their divisive and undemocratic practices. werldwayd (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This subject overlaps significantly with the already existing Kingdom of Kongo and Kongo people. Since it's unsourced and apparently original research, it does not seem to be merge-worthy.- Mr X 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for improvement. The number of different articles listed at Congo suggests that we need an overarching article dealing with the subject, not just a disambiguation page. The articles on the Kongo people, the hisotric kingdom of Kongo, and the three successor polities (two republics and Cabinda) are not capable of providing an overview. Nevertheless this is not a good article and needs improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain me using which sources which well-established term could be described there?

Furthermore these polities are not “the three successors” of the Kongo kingdom. There is no legal, political or any reasonably constructable continuity, but the name of the Kongo people simply got used to designate the river and the name of the river was used for some colonies. These three polities are successors of colonies but not of the Kongo kingdom which gets a lot of emphasize in the current article. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have articles on the Congo basin and each nation and notable ethnic group living there and their histories. There is no need for a general article on the "area," especially when secondary sources have not designated it a notable concept. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:39, 15 July 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 05:28, 23 July 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, Chricho ∀ (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Werldwayd: @Peterkingiron: Could anybody of the proponents of keeping this article give some ideas which sources to use if we want to describe some well-established term in the article? I have outlined above what would be necessary and I do not think there are such sources. The current state is unbearable, I have listed all kinds of factual errors. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that Congo basin pretty much covers the useful ground here. We don't seem to have the same difficulties with the concept of "Germany" which has only existed since 1871... That aside too, the article is pretty poor and virtually unsourced. If we apply the (admittedly absurdly high) criteria used in WP:AFC, this article should never have been created in the first place. Some of the content can be merged. I disagree with werldwayd about the ambiguousness of the term "Congolese". Since you'll find precious non-explicitly-historical content about the Congo pre-1870s (whether this is a good thing) the confusion does not really arise in peripheral articles. Congo-Kinshasa's borders have been remarkably static since its first colonization anyhow. A possible alternative solution would be to bulk up Congolese diaspora which is currently a redirect. And in answer to your question "what is [it] that holds them together as Congolese...?" The answer's simple - colonialism (see Congo Crisis) and international pressure. In the Congo itself, from my experience, the notion of being Congolese is not that great - ethnicity, religion etc. is much more important.-Brigade Piron (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the dire state of the article, particularly the lack of references, I am going to recommend keep. I don't agree that the Congo basin article covers the same material, that is purely a geographical article whereas this article attempts to cover as well political, historical, and demographic aspects of the region; in fact, all aspects. Is the Congo limited to just the Congo river watershed or is it a broader term than that? The article is more comparable to, say, Eastern Europe, or Southeast Asia. Eastern Europe has great diversity of language, nations, and ethnicities and a poorly defined geographic boundary, just like the Congo. Nevertheless, there are some common threads running through its history and culture (such as the Orhtodox Christian religion and its domination by the communist bloc) that allow a meaningful article to be written. I know little about the Congo and the article currently makes a pretty poor job of this, but it seems likely that similar threads can be found to build a decent article. SpinningSpark 21:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faseeh Shams[edit]

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

The sources in the article do not indicate a sufficient level of notability to meet guidelines at WP:BIO; e.g. no independent sources about the subject. Deli nk (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources are trivial mentions. The strongest source is of questionable reliability and merely establishes that Amanda Gorence considers the subject a photojournalist. From that source's about page: "If you’re a photographer, you can now promote your work, new series, website, gallery show, etc. on Feature Shoot for an affordable price." Obviously, the strongest source exists to promote photographers. The subject fails to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG.- Mr X 16:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 15 July 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 05:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per MrX. Fai zan 19:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gbawden (talk) 10:25, 25 July 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Culliney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable fails WP:ACADEMIC. It appears there is little indication that he has "contributed significantly" to his field, any more than the average academic anyways. Ohc ^¡digame! 09:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I noted in the first AFD, he has published three Sierra Club books, a very popular, well-covered and well-received line of books in its pre-internet day. Google books search shows enough references in popular literature and in magazines like Nature to support notability, although this is an article that probably requires print resources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 15 July 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 05:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -As an entertainment historian, on a topical look it does seem that the subject would not meet up to WP:NOTABILITY. However,upon research, I find that he has made several notable contributions to the literary world and does have valid sources that would qualify him imo to sustain the article.--Canyouhearmenow 11:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not convinced that there's anything online to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC; specifically, for a relatively prolific author I'd expect Google Scholar to turn up some book reviews in academic journals. While it's possible that paper sources would establish notability, I'd expect to see more online, and it's hard to !vote "keep" in good conscience based on a hunch that sources might exist. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tic-tac-toe. Once Merged - Feel free to Redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced tic tac toe[edit]

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

Non-notable variation on Tic-tac-toe. My attempt to redirect to the Variations section of that article was reverted by the article creator without an edit summary or noticeable improvement. --Finngall ^talk 04:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as suggested. No reason to think this is independently notable enough for a stand-alone article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect in the absence of further independent reliable sources to establish notability. Deltahedron (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect This variant lacks decent proof of notability. The Banner talk 16:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Atheist Day[edit]

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

I have checked the citations. There is no mention of a nationwide event called "Indian Atheist Day" in them. Although death anniversary of Bhagat Singh was observed, that can be added to the Bhagat Singh page. Googling for "Indian Atheist Day" shows only 294 results, notably of this article is debatable. Kenfyre (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page is basically an advert for a small group of people organising an atheist conference. I have found no evidence of meeting the GNG, and many Ghits are in fact WP mirrors. Moreover I can't confirm it meets the criteria of lasting effects or widespread notice to meet WP:NEVENT. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per BethNaught, fails GNG. Fai zan 07:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and WP:NEVENT per Faizan and BethNaught Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:54, 29 July 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 both election articles to Pontypridd Urban District Council, as the merger of significant content appears to be a fait accompli. Deor (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pontypridd Urban District Council election, 1898[edit]

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

city (at least sub-county) level election results from 1898 are WP:NOT notable Gaijin42 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pontypridd Urban District Council along with Pontypridd Urban District Council election, 1896 which could be included in this nomination. The history of the council (including early elections) should be covered but individual council elections two years apart seems a bit much. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is part of a WikiProject to cover the electoral history of South Wales. The information on the page may appear limited at present but this will be expanded. If Wikipedia is to expand and become a recognised source of secondary information gleaned from various places on the web such pages as this will in time become increasingly common. Please to do not proceed with proposal. Will consider merging if this is thought appropriate. Many thanks. GlamElector (talk)

@GlamElector in what way is this level of detail on city/sub-county elections from 100 years ago of encyclopedic value? This is a meta question, since presumably you intend to create articles for every welsh election, detailing elections where the total number of votes was in the low hundreds. In my opinion such a level of detail is unsustainable and inappropriate. You would end up with hundreds of thousands or even millions of articles to give local election coverage. A good rule of thumb would be if the people being elected in general do not pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN then neither does the election that put them in place. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both after merging. No possible justification for a separate article on each election, the details of which are entirely trivial; the page on the council as a whole is a smallish stub. Do we really want a separate article for every election in every human settlement in the world? And if not, why would we want that for Wales? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Editor GlamElector has already merged the content from this page and Pontypridd Urban District Council election, 1896 to Pontypridd Urban District Council; I believe this could now be closed and the page redirected to that target at any time, and that thanks are due to GlamElector for being so willing to listen to the arguments of others. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:34, 31 July 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 02:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Garrett[edit]

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

Youtube "celebrity" with one source. Does not pass WP:GNG to me. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A craft of this article hss been worked on for a long time in userspace; I'm on Mobile and can't find it; I think it is in @M.e:? We should discuss whether the draft is in better shape, or look for previous discussions. I will look into it more when I get to work tommorow. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. No reliable sources in this article. As mentioned above, there's a Userspace version at User:M.e/Joseph Garrett with a single reliable source. I'm unable to find any other reliable, third-party sources. It doesn't appear that any version of this article is ready for primetime. Woodroar (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Szzuk (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing from a reliable video game journalism source for the page title or "Stampy". Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No suitable merge targets. czar ♔ 15:52, 24 July 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. However, per request I will copy this to the draft space for User:MaynardClark to have a look at. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Wong (immunologist)[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG only source actually discussing subject is her own companies website Gaijin42 (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The article discusses the issues that she has worked on in several companies which she did not control - companies which each have Wikipedia articles devoted to them. Then, the articles references the AREAS of her research work done AFTER she founded and led a company which recruited top scientists from those other companies. Further, the article is much better developed now, and her research colleagues, most of whom have their own Wikipedia articles because of their notoriety, are listed in a distinct section. MaynardClark (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The ~~clueless~~ writer of this BLP does not say under which name she publishes, so I can't comment. Default Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Would the creator of this BLP like to say if he has a WP:COI or edits it for reward? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I began this article. I have no fCOI here. I'm not involved with any of these pharmaceutical companies. I do not receive pay for this or from any other article writing or editing or work on the Wikipedia project(s). I'm only interested in the promise of this kind of research (drug repurposing, which is not all that Grace Wong's operation does). I'm a research administrator at Harvard School of Public Health. However, I see no reason why a COI would make any difference in the integrity of the article. It's what it is - factual, useful, interesting, and more worthwhile than some of the articles about US celebrities. The research is very promising; 'deletionists' should study the references to see what radiosensitization, radiodesensitization, chemosensitization and chemodesensitization are, what drug repurposing is. MaynardClark (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all the baubles you display on your user page I am surprised that you do not know what a WP:BLP is. It appears that under [27] you should have declared that you edit for reward. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The only reward is the satisfaction of an article on the person, who is a colorful character, a very resourceful scientist, and a good organizer of scientists and students of science, many of whom have bettered their careers because of her mentoring. MaynardClark (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your views, you are required to follow Wikipedia policy. If you don't you can be banned from editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This is the policy that I am following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Where is there any infraction? MaynardClark (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MaynardClark the drug/scientific concepts are important and very notable. That is not the same thing as a particular person working in the field being notable (yet). If she makes some great breakthroughs that would certainly change - What is needed are independent reliable sources discussing her, or if one is attempting to go the academic route, papers she has written that are heavily cited (relative to the citing standards of the particular field). As it currently is, the article serves as a WP:COATRACK for the scientific concepts - if those topics need an article, write that article. How many of thse sources in the article actually discuss Dr Wong? The policies in question would be WP:GNG WP:ACADEMIC WP:BIO. I do not see any WP:BLP issues in the current article (except perhaps WP:PSEUDO) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe I think mentioning sanctions is uncalled for at this juncture. He created an article. It may or may not survive AFD. But we do not ban people for creating articles that are ultimately deleted, unless it is done to excess and disruption. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a questioning of the recently endorsed WP:Paid editing policy [28] which editors may not be yet up to date with. Better to warn sooner than later. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - I fixed the formatting and removed some trivia about another scientist, per WP:MOS and WP:NOTINHERITED. The major remaining problem with the article seems to be the dearth of significant coverage in secondary sources about the subject herself. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear whether or not any 'vote' is occurring. Clarification, please? MaynardClark (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MaynardClark This is WP:NOTVOTE, per WP:DISCUSSAFD, it is a discussion trying to build a WP:CONSENSUS on if the article should be deleted or not. Its not a vote in that nobody is going to be just counting the votes in the end and the majority wins. That said, the count is not ignored all together, it is just that the weight of the arguments presented by those individuals is more important. That weight is largely determined by adherence to various wikipedia policies and guidelines, some of which have been pointed out above. The most important one in this case is WP:N. It may seem like a vote tho, and certainly the outcome of this discussion will determine the future (or lack thereof for now) of the Grace Wong article. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 Thank you. There may be a need to develop more of the reasons for notability, so what if we don't have everything in place at this time. The people in the company aren't really driving this; I had thought that Dr. Grace Wong is a colorful character whom we often see in Harvard's Longwood Medical Area; we know of her work with memorializing Linus Pauling, she mentors a great many science students, and her array of work INCLUDES (but is not limited to) (what I consider to be) some very promising research directions in pharmaceutical development. MaynardClark (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. There is a brief bio here, another bio here. A problem for searchers: the name Grace Wong is common; while searching, I found a valedictorian, a marine biologist, a reporter, many other Grace Wongs, so I tried to limit the search string using pulls (such as immunolog? OR actokine OR therapeut? OR etc) but still searching was difficult, and I did not want to get the wong Wong (sorry). She is clearly a highly active, well-respected medical researcher, who publishes frequently; for example, her article tumor necrosis factor was cited by 101 other researchers. So she might meet the professor test in terms of publishing impact. But right now I don't see much in terms of nontrivial in-depth coverage, but clearly she is one of those people who discover new things, and is having a big impact on improving the lives of all humans. She appears to be a major force in her industry.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that being 'a major force in [one's] industry' is in itself reason to take a person's bio seriously. Some contributors in the sciences don't seek visibility outside the 'media of the profession' (conferences, meetings, workshops, posterings, announcements, etc.). MaynardClark (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC explicitly allows for that type of argument in criteria #1, but that status must itself be reflected in independent reliable sources. This leads right into the second problem, of which even if we could hand-wave away the notability requirement, everything, especially on a WP:BLP, must be WP:Verifiable. If there are not sources talking about Wong, then that means everything in the article is either unsourced, or not actually about her (IE, WP:COATRACK) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

snips from WP:ACADEMIC

"The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
"It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details."

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Grace Wong herself would like the article to be removed. I vote for speedy deletion! How quickly could this be done wtihout jeopardizing the prospect of such an article's being developed in the future? MaynardClark (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MaynardClark The page may still qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G7 as nobody else has made any major edits. (Bearian do you object? you seem to be the only other human to make any edits.) but as this discussion is now ripe for closing, that may be interpreted as WP:GAMEing the system to avoid the deletion decision. In either case, if the article is recreated in the future with better sources (such that it does not qualify for WP:G4) there would be no issue, but the sources must be significantly stronger the second time around to avoid the g4 usually. You could add the speedy g7 template to the page and see what happens.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with whatever this groups decides. Deletion, mothballing (is there such a thing, perhaps return to a 'userspace'), or something else.

I don't know where there are any inaccuracies or liabilities, since everything there is directly from published, online materials that are already public. MaynardClark (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does MaynardClark know that the subject requests deletion? Is he in contact with her? If so he should have declared COI. The creator has been not been fully unambiguous about the question of editing for reward. I find his behavior in this AfD to have been less than satisfactory. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

If it is deleted, you may ask the deleting administrator to userfy or copy to WP:AFC for you, both places where you may improve on the article in the background. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - without more information, I reserve my right not to !vote. I do not object to this BLP's deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on basis of questions about the BLP's provenance. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete because the interests of the project and of the article's subject are to delete the article, as it currently stands. I would like to see it copied to WP:AFC. MaynardClark (talk) 00:17, 31 July 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. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Leak[edit]

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

One role in The Great Debaters doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. He does get a substantial (if negative) mention in The New York Times film review of Implanted, but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criterion 1 of WP:NACTOR: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." As the nominator pointed out, Leak had the leading role in Implanted (which is a notable film despite its lack of an article) and a main role in The Great Debaters, and as is said in the article, acted in Atlanta's longest running theater production. Seems notable enough to me. 97198 (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you get billed after "Pig Farmer" and just before "Harvard Debater #1" in The Great Debaters, it's questionable how significant your role is. As for Implanted, it appears to have been little seen and poorly rated (in IMDb). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 97198's reasoning. Implanted is definitely a film that could have an article and just doesn't, but film isn't all that matters for WP:NACTOR. The theater production information easily matches "significant roles in...stage performances". Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 14:13, 17 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Failing WP:NACTOR is not a valid reason for deletion. The article does cite multiple references and nominator finds another, which seems enough to pass WP:BASIC. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 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. I'm really tempted to close this as Weak No Consensus :-) There seems to be just barely enough delete sentiment here that I'm going to go with that, but if anybody feels strongly that wasn't justified, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be receptive to reasoned arguments to relist this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Midnight Heart[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, sourced almost entirely to primary sources, with the only usually reliable source here (Spin) offering only a blurb which fails to constitute substantial coverage. Delete unless sourcing and notability can be beefed up to meet Wikipedia's inclusion and content standards. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's not exactly the cover of the Rolling Stone but we do have a substantive article about her in Rookie magazine. [29] Less substantial, but perhaps still counting for something: she has been touring with Tegan and Sara and there are assorted, very brief, reviews of her performance in articles covering the tour. [30] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't see enough on which to base an article at present. In addition to The Rookie coverage that Arxiloxos found, I also found this from Noisey/Vice, and a few brief pieces: [31], [32], [33]. It's a bit thin and I don't think we could really say any criterion of WP:NMUSIC is satisfied, but if anyone can find one or two more substantial pieces of coverage then we might have enough for a short article. She isn't currently mentioned in either of the articles on the bands she was part of(?) - maybe adding a couple of lines in Escort (band) (which the sources back up) and redirecting would do for now. --Michig (talk) 08:30, 22 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I want to keep, but I just don't think she could be said to meet any of WP:MUSIC. Reading between the lines of the coverage that does exist, I'd say that her association with notable acts is basically as a backup/session singer, and that her own work hasn't yet received much in the way of critical attention. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Golola[edit]

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

Kickboxer who fails WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:A pioneer of his disipline in his home country, responsible for growing the popularity of his sport at home[34]. The top kickboxer in his nation, and a regional champion of Africa. A quick google search shows multiple articles in English, from various sources online [35][36][37][38][39], detailing and tracking his accomplishments - this, coming from a small country that doesn't necessarily have a large online presence - a testament to his popularity in his native land. Sees that his activities are detailed by multiple online newspapers in Uganda. While not an internationally famous fight, this fighter is clearly a celebrity and heavily followed in his home country. Is clearly successful enough to make lots of money in his sport [40]. Inspires enough fan passion to receive this letter to the editor in a local newspaper [41] Quotations listed on wikiquotes[42]. More than enough to verify notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.40.25 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with 123.193.40.25. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yet we have only a 2 line stub which covers none of this. With only WP:KICK to go by he doesn't pass and listing references here wont make the case. As the article stands now it is not notable - he may pass WP:GNG but not right now.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been expanded but I am neutral (sitting on fence) as to whether WP:GNG has been met.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PRehse:"As the article stands now it is not notable - he may pass WP:GNG but not right now." Notability has nothing to do with the shape of an article, see Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, it is a good essay. Our article is a poor stub, but it is referenced and entirely acceptable, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that - just don't think he's notable based only on WP:GNG - just my opinion. I still would like to see the article expanded and am willing to change my vote if the impression changes.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG usually trumps notability guidelines of individual Wikiprojects (such as Wikipedia:KICK#Notability) ... but you are entitled to your opinion, of course. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Sources are mainly fight results or announcements (routine coverage). A fan letter to the editor is not a reliable source nor is making money an automatic indication of notability (especially when the linked article never mentions money). Not enough to meet GNG and definitely doesn't meet KICK.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I made various changes in the article to address the issue of notability and seek out information that provides more context on the importance of Golola in the wider context of Ugandan society. There is information in his native language that I couldn't use as sources - perhaps someone with knowledge of that language can review those articles and add that information to this article. I also didn't bother to add information on his kickboxing career, as doing so is apparently just a waste of time in determining notability - someone else will have to fix that part of the article.123.193.40.25 (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a waste of time - just doesn't put him over the top on notability. At the very least it provides context. The additions you made look good toward establishing WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 15 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he doesn't meet WP:KICK, I believe there are now enough sources to show he meets WP:GNG. He apparently is a big deal in his home country. Papaursa (talk) 19:27, 26 July 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. Relisted twice, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disc Hoops[edit]

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

Non-notable new sport/game. Patent was issued in May of this year. No coverage found other than the local paper article. Article creator shares a last name with the inventor of the game. --Finngall ^talk 21:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Recently invented game which lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Local paper coverage is insufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:25, 15 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:01, 23 July 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. Relisted twice, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harihar Das[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:26, 15 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The biography's details and sources do not add up to independent evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Cuddy[edit]

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

Individual only has minor/supporting roles and lacks a fan base or significant coverage in any entertainment news sources. Searching his name on any search engine comes up with many other individuals with the same name. He has not done any acting since 2010 and his website has been deleted, likely meaning he has no plans of ever returning to acting. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:29, 15 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor actor who fails notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - roles to date appear to fall short of meeting WP:ENT, and I am unable to find coverage to establish that the subject meets WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 15:19, 28 July 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 05:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simplemente María (2014 telenovela)[edit]

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

It is too early to create this article, the telenovela premieres yet, nor has transmission date, or have started their recordings, which makes the item is speculative because it still has not confirmed the entire cast. And wikipedia is not a crystal ball Damián80 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:29, 15 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:58, 23 July 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. Relisted twice, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartLipo[edit]

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

Promotional Article that directly and indirectly promotes the organization Cynosure, Inc. Ireneshih (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam for a proprietary treatment. The references provided are mostly not from Reliable Sources, and even those that are from normally RS sources are written from a gee-whiz, personal-experience type of point of view. Even if the subject met WP:GNG, which I don't think it does, the relevant standard for a medical procedure is WP:MEDRS, which this doesn't come close to meeting. --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:31, 15 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:57, 23 July 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) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haath Dhoreche Gaacher Paata[edit]

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

Lacks notability for an article on its own. Can be merged into Proloy (film)#Soundtrack. Bold merge has been reverted more than once. Jayakumar RG (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:32, 15 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:56, 23 July 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 j⚛e decker ^talk 02:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muchacha Italiana Viene a Casarse (2014 telenovela)[edit]

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

The soap does not have an exact release date. And you only have a reference the other article was copied from "Yo no Creo en los Hombres." Recordings of the telenovela have not begun, and decide not to have the name telenovela. So it seems speculative creating this article. The cast also confirmed. Damián80 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:32, 15 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:56, 23 July 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. Davewild (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Elizetxe[edit]

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

Entrepreneur article with mainly PR sources. No indication of importance nor notability. BiH (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The nearest to evidence of notability is probably the Arizona Republic piece, but I regard that as local coverage and insufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 23 July 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 05:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Shaw[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for biographies, academics or creative professionals (as a journalist); I can't find any coverage that's independent and not routine. Also an autobiography by an editor whose only contributions have been to this and related articles. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His sole claim to notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned are the awards (most of which come from the organisation he works for) and being director of Pictures of the Year International. In his role in POYi there is no demonstration of what he has achieved there being notable. I don't want to rush to the conclusion of deleting it, but it isn't looking good. -Lopifalko (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:35, 15 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Euryalus per CSD A7, "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenan Pulak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is currently tagged as CSD A7. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability failure due to lack of reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:35, 23 July 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. Davewild (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Javier Larrazabal De Tarlac[edit]

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

Author claims this person to be a saint, but I can't find any evidence for that. He is not mentioned anywhere on the internet under name "Javier Larrazabal De Tarlac" [43] or "Francis Javier Larrazabal" [44]. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a test page, or an unredeemable mess, or as something unverifiable. From this edit, it appears the creator of the article wanted to create an article for a proposed saint, by cutting and pasting something from an uncited source (at my college, we call that plagiarism, but here we call it WP:COPYVIO). Then he edited it down into the current mess. I can't verify any part of it, but the subject may have been a mix-up with either (a) a person known as Sister Aiello, who was beatified (declared blessed) in September 2011, or (b) Crescencia Pérez, who likewise was beatified 17 November 2012, or (c) one of the "companions" of another saint. Any which way, this is such a wreck it should be deleted. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, it's a completely unsourced biography of a contemporary person, and at worst, it's a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the earliest version of the article, noted by Bearian to be a copied from somewhere, is indeed a copy-paste from José María of Manila#Beatification Process. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that research! If anybody can fix this mess, I would do along with keeping it. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it? I actually think it is a hoax. I was only explaining the copy-paste. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be understandable if someone copied another article to help them put together the structure of a new article, although if they do that, they should preferably do so in their userspace. More importantly, the editor needs to replace the old article with accurate, verifiable content. This has not been done in this case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a hoax. A contemporary Christian martyr with a known date of birth, but missing the date of death? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm just assuming it's an honest mistake, or in legalese, negligence. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this edit by the same editor, the subject allegedly died in 2010. Of course, no evidence has been provided that the subject was ever declared a saint ... or was martyred ... or died under any circumstances ... or ever was alive in the first place. And if he had been alive, he would have lived his entire life since the World Wide Web was invented (born in 1991), so there ought to be evidence of his existence if he was real, or at least if he was notable. So I believe the editor has exhausted their reserve of good faith. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seems to be completely made up!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of sources. This would be a clear BLP violation, except it seems to claim the person is dead, but even that is unclear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 23 July 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. Davewild (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tierra[edit]

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

Current article relies exclusively on primary sources. Searches in HighBeam, Google News, and my library's online database only identify brief mentions and a book review, but no substantial coverage on Tierra. CorporateM (Talk) 03:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does appear to be a founder of the American Herbalists Guild,[45] but its notability is also questionable. In a search I found only his own books, no coverage of him as required to meet WP:BIO. Most of the article is not even about him, but is a defense of various systems of herbology, with lengthy quotes from Tierra and other practitioners. --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 24 July 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. I will boldly redirect this to Toastmasters International after, however that is not a part of this close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Toastmasters[edit]

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

Nothing in this article indicates notability. There are 100s of Toastmasters worldwide - we can't have an entry for every one of them. Reads like a promotional piece Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article just can't go anywhere, there is no precedent for city toastmasters of this kind, they are all individual clubs that just happen to be in a given city. Refs don't support the article. Szzuk (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is one of the largest councils of such clubs - 1,000 members in 30 units. Can any reliable sources be found? Bearian (talk) 16:25, 28 July 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. Davewild (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William The Accountant[edit]

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

Non-notable band. reddogsix (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band. Some local mentions but no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding sufficient coverage to warrant an article at this time; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm L Lusby[edit]

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

Non notable IMO - fails WP:NACTOR viz has not met "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" He has only appeared in short films - too soon to have an article Gbawden (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to IMDb, which granted isn't a terribly reliable source, but they are still pretty good about listing credits, he has a total of 1 credit in a short movie and he's credited as "Support group member" and the movie hasn't even come out so how can you be known for a movie that hasn't come out yet? Fails WP:NACTOR. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The movie actually may have come out, but it does not appear to be notable. It is 14 minutes long, and at that Lusby does not have a major part. He is about as far from a notable actor as I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been a caterer on 3 movies. Perhaps I too am notable. Fails both WP:NACTOR and GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 05:59, 24 July 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. Davewild (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Cole Jr.[edit]

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

Non notable IMO - reads like a memorial. Fails WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL.19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

[Anandtech-1] Smith, Ryan (23 June 2014). "Google I/O: Qualcomm Celebrates Launch of Adreno 420 GPU for Android Gaming". Anandtech. Retrieved 15 July 2014.

[TomsH-2] Ku, Andrew (10 Oct 2012). "Snapdragon S4 Pro: Krait And Adreno 320, Benchmarked". Tom's Hardware. Retrieved 15 July 2014.

[NBC-3] ?. "Qualcomm Adreno 330". Notebook Check. Retrieved 15 July 2014. {{cite web}}: |author= has numeric name (help)

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Mu_Do

[5] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=grand+master+ks+hwang&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=kwang+sung+hwang+%28K-9-1

[6] ttp://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1966/05/30/BGY506060539/?s=reel

[7] ttps://taekwondofuture.wordpress.com/tag/choi-hong-hi/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]