Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 July	4 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 01:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SimplyShe

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

Article about a company which doesn't make an especially strong claim of notability per se; the most substantive claim here is the vague and unverifiable "a leading supplier". Not blatant enough an advertisement to warrant speedy under G11, but dancing perilously close to that line. The "references", further, are mostly to (a) primary sources such as the company's own press releases, (b) unreliable sources like non-notable blogs, or (c) blurbs in publications that would pass our rules if the articles were longer, but which are in reality far too brief to actually constitute substantive coverage of the company. Literally the only source that even approaches substantive coverage is #6 (SFGate), and that isn't enough to get a company over the notability bar if it's the only substantive source that can be provided. (In addition, there's a conflict of interest here, as a Google search reveals that the creator's username, User:Craigmclaughlin ex, matches the name of this company's CEO's husband ("I met Maria Peevey (CEO of SimplyShe) and Craig McLaughlin (CEO of extractable.com) both of San Francisco, Ca., as they were planning their wedding at The Parker Palm Springs".) As always, I know that COI isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself if the article can be cleaned up with better sourcing, but it doesn't help the article's case if there are other valid reasons for deletion in addition to the COI alone. As always, I'm happy to withdraw this if the article can be salvaged with better sourcing, but it's not entitled to stick around in this form. Delete if improvement isn't forthcoming. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After doing my own searches, I agree with the nominator that I can find small mentions, but not substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with nominator's analysis. The SFGate article alone is not enough for notability, and there is nothing else. The article as written is practically incoherent - just TRY to figure out what they sell! - but that's not a reason for deletion. Lack of notability is. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 8 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 01:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D.J. Heckes

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

Article is about a business person / author who fails to meet notability guidelines. Sourcing in the article is from non-reliable sources or is local coverage. I am unable to find any better sourcing in my own searches. Whpq (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not see any substantial, secondary WP:RS coverage provided or in searches. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. -- GreenC 01:01, 8 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) 17:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodernism Building in Malaysia

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

The article has gone through several incarnations (the author doesn't seem to be sure what the subject of this article is supposed to be): the first consisted almost entirely of the copy-and-pasted resume of the architect Nik Mohamed Mahmood (which I have deleted). The second was about the Menara Axis building. As of now, it has been expanded into what seems to be a list of buildings in Malaysia which supposedly represent postmodernism; the references don't mention postmodernism anywhere, and sometimes don't even mention the individual buildings, either. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have previously nominated this for speedy deletion, and then it was recreated. This is a non notable subject and if it was, the article would have to be virtually rewritten.Staglit (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You prodded it, which is no bar against recreation. It wasn't speedy deleted. postdlf (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, it was speedily deleted by me as promotional and/or copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The kindest thing I can say is that it's a list and as such fails notability for standalone lists as a non-notable topic. With a wary eye to other stuff doesn't exist, we don't seem to have any similar articles for other countries. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I'm a little surprised, but after a fair amount of poking around I'm not seeing this subset of architecture discussed in WP:RS. There may be non-English sources, and the article can be recreated once they are unearthed. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What a mess. I don't think this list is notable (from the title, I thought it was actually about a single building in Malaysia!) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be renamed Postmodern architecture in Malaysia if it's kept. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be someone's personal essay about the pros and cons of this architecture. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 7 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) 17:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Classic Clubs

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

Looks like a copy of the given source without the coat of arms. The Banner talk 21:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Well, yes I listed all clubs mentioned as classic by FIFA official website. I did it because i red about beeing a classic club in some wiki articles (like Club Atlético San Lorenzo article). So, I googled it to see what was it, then I created the article and linked to clubs considered classics by FIFA (I didn't finish with that). It's also similar to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Player_of_the_Century which is pretty much a list too !

But if you think this is not worthy in wikipedia it's ok to me. I just wanted to add cool info.

Sorry for my english. User talk:Wikipediow 21:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should add independent sources as only they can determine the notability of this list. And you should try to fix the internal links as the article has 23 links to disambiguation pages, like the link to Ajax. The Banner talk 21:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

I'm fixing internal links right now and I will look some info to add.

Give me some time before you decide to delete.

User talk:Wikipediow 21:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I fixed all desambiguation links in every team. Also added and referenced a book that lists clubs considered as classic. User talk:Wikipediow 22:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see no encyclopedic value in this list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholly non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 10:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Listcruft. Fenix down (talk) 14:37, 9 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Coney Island

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

Local chain with no substantial coverage--certainly no non-local coverage. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - certainly the sourcing in the article could be improved, but my Lexis Nexis search shows notability (sorry about no links for easy reference). The chain has received quite a lot of press. Sure a good percentage is "local" in that it comes from Detroit, but coverage in large city newspapers (Detroit Free Press) is not usually what we think of when we say "local coverage". Non-local coverage includes profiles by Canadean, Zoom, and Lexis Nexis itself. The Toronto Star quoted National Coney Island as an authority on coney dogs and had a paragraph or two about the chain. USA Today listed it among the country's top airport food in 2009. CNN listed it as one of the 10 "airport restaurants that taste like home" in 2013. Several DFP stories featuring the chain have been picked up by affiliated papers nationally. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a large enough and noted enough restaurant to pass our notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has numerous sources. --do ncr am 23:16, 8 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 01:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoosain ebrahim

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

Not sufficiently notable Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to pass GNG, no independent, reliable, indepth source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable sources. The NYT Bestseller claim appears to be false, unless there is alternative name spelling. --GreenC 00:59, 8 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 01:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Dust

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

Does NOT need article of its own Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible content. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Non-notable product with no significant topic coverage found in reliable third-party sources. Can be mentioned in the Bayer article, if appropriate. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, no real saveable content, other than a quick mention. In addition to the Bayer article, maybe also in Deltamethrin, along with other example products which use it as an active ingredient? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:15, 10 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. ignoring the single purpose accounts here, consensus shows she fails WP:GNG. Secret ^account 01:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madison McKinley

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

Why the page should be deleted

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ENT. Article fails WP:RS even after repeated attempts to find appropriate references. At best subject appears to be Wikipedia:Too_soon#Actors_and_actresses. The article appears to be an example of WP:PROMOTION with peacocks by people with clear WP:COI. During attempts to fix the article there were multiple sock-puppets banned for vandalizing, and an editor admitting to have been paid by someone with a probable WP:COI - [1]. Jersey92 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There certainly are trace elements of notability, but I'm thinking this might be a case of having been created too soon. As the nominator notes, COI/promotional edits have also been a problem, which generally lead me to the conclusion that it's not ready to stand on its own two feet yet. Once there's more coverage in reliable sources, the article can be recreated. Right now, there isn't really much to say except that she appeared on a reality TV show. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there were a couple attempts to clean up the article since the nomination, none sufficiently address the issue of notability. The NY Times citation that was added is a page on the NY Times website that has the subject's name and little else (clicking biography there it even says "Gender Unknown") [2]... and may appear from an automated feed from a movie database... it is not a discussion about the subject... Hence I believe this should be Delete --Jersey92 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I came to this article through the RFC on the talk page, which is no long relevant. I arrived after the rewrite, but saw the remains of a multitude of unreliable and primary sources probably left over from the original. I went through and cut them back drastically. We have a pretty low notability bar for actors (and sportsman for that matter) and this, while not amazing, might be enough for her to scrape by. AIRcorn (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't that be at best a WP:BLP1E? Wikipedia is not going to have an article for everyone who appeared on a reality show... --Jersey92 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if she hadn't had other minor roles. Also point 2 of one event says "...is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" which is debatable given her career choice. It is a weak keep at the moment given the lack of quality secondary sources, so I might be convinced otherwise. As Ninja says there are traces of notability and I think the COI elements have been dealt with satisfactorily so I am leaning to giving it a chance. AIRcorn (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but feel that what you are describing is pretty much WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has independent coverage from reliable sources with many television roles. Also, as AIRcorn points out that the COI elements have been dealt with satisfactorily; the same goes with the promotional issue because I don't find any promotional information on the subject’s article. A bunch of poor sources were removed by different editors; the good sources are kept; and the citation issues are fixed according to the edit history. The Rfc is no longer applicable. This article may need expansion on the content, but not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep -- The reliable sources in this article are adequate to find this subject to be notable. Her acting career shows consistency year after year. This article provides more evidence of notability than just the reality TV. I do not see the reason why she is not-notable.Hillysilly (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Hillysilly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment So the sockpuppet and WP:COI saga has continued on the main Article page and spread to this AfD.

On the AfD:

Cristine nickol is suspected of a WP:COI with relation to this article and of being a sockpuppet - please see [3]

User:Hillysilly appears clearly to be a new WP:SPA. Please check Special:Contributions/Hillysilly

On the article page

User:Starshop72 appears very much to be a new SPA. Please se Special:Contributions/Starshop72 - all in 1 day and appear related...

User:Klokus has previously admitted having a WP:COI and being paid to edit this article. Please see[4] --Jersey92 (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To whomever is sockpuppeting / using SPAs: If you want this Article to remain please do more that write "Keep" or say that the problems are fixed or that the subject is Notable. This is not a vote. It is a discussion. Please produce and add to the article real WP:RS that show why the subject passes WP:NOTABILITY. In this subject's case that would likely mean WP:ENT. (I tried and did not find these.) More sources that either do not meet WP:RS or show that the subject is WP:TOOSOON or WP:BLP1E do not cause this subject to pass WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers: I recently made a contribution to the reference section of this article with good faith. User Jersey92, Why are you attacking me with names? Please stop attacking me by calling me names, sockpuppet and SPA, take back what you said about me, and give me an apology. At the end of the day, the content of the article and the subject should be judged by themselves, not by looking at the editor or accusations. Please assume good faith. Thank you. --Starshop72 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is attacking you. Assuming good faith, however, does not mean ignoring an obvious pattern of sockpuppetry and SPAs in an AfD discussion and its associated article. Various accounts with these WP:COIs were even banned by administrators for vandalizing Wikipedia. Please see link above. If we assume good faith from every SPA and sockpuppet we will not have objective AfD discussions. As the nominator I want to make sure this discussion about the article is obective. If you want to fix the article please do so with real WP:RS as I discussed above. As I wrote above this is not a vote. If 100 SPAs and sockpuppets say Keep without providing proper reasons this article is still going to get deleted. The fact that so much problematic editing is going on also makes me believe that this article cannot stand on its own and should be deleted. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Part of a noticeable pattern of activity on the part of an editor who appears to be here only to promote and has now received a final warning. Deb (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been mentioned in the Rising Star magazine and reputed news media such as DenverPost, NYTimes, LAtimes and others in the article. She has filmography from 2007 to 2015. I must say the article should be given a chance to keep and improve.Natalia.chase (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)— Natalia.chase (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Another SPA... Article was given chance to improve with tags, RfC, and AfD and the response was vandalism, sock puppets and paid promotional edits. If there are real NY Times and LA Times coverage please add those references. Blank pages are not coverage. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's enforce the WP Terms of Use [5] with regard to obvious paid editor and sock Klokus as well as his minions. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:57, 10 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hater (Korn song)

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

Contested PROD of a non-charting single. Does not meet WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The song has now charted and so the AfD should probably be closed as it meets NSONGS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't really a single. It's an album track that was sent out on promotional CDs to promote the album, and an album track that can be downloaded, just like every other album track, albeit in advance of the album in this case. No commercial physical release, and is just a single track off the album. A distinct lack of coverage suggests that while a mention in an article on the album may be appropriate, a standalone article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Track has charted. SPACKlick (talk) 08:28, 11 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 (G7). (non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 17:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Solomon

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

I can't find the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article being deleted. It is about me. What's the problem? I heard there was a copyright problem.....my biography is allowed to be used here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanyaviola (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sent an email with the appropriate authorization for this biographical information in the article. Tanyaviola (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't about text being copied from your website, the issue is about notability. Per WP:GNG topics must show "significant coverage" from reliable sources independent of the subject. Also, if you want to involve yourself in editing an article about yourself you should familiarize yourself with WP:AUTOBIO. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could just be a misunderstanding on her part. The article was also tagged for being copied from her website, so it's possible she thought that was the reason for the deletion notice. Regardless, Tchaliburton is correct, sources independent of the subject are needed to establish notability, and all I see is links to personal websites. Also, a google search is showing pretty much social networking and sites for purchasing music, nothing that can be used here to establish notability. Cmr08 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 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 and move. With a large contingent also supporting a move to be focused on the case rather than the company, there is no reason to delete sourced material that just needs to be reworked to suit. kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kleargear

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

This feels like more of a WP:BLP1E situation than a real long-term article on the company. As before, failed WP:ORG, WP:NOTNEWS among other issues. The last discussion was at the height of the controversy and I think with the passage of time, we can review things more clearly. If not delete, then maybe a rename to the litigation itself (Palmer vs. Kleargear.com) which I doubt is notable either. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The company is only notable for that one notorious case, but generally people only remember the company rather than the case name. My take is to rename to the case name, with Kleargear redirected there. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/refactor to Palmer v. Kleargear.com or a similar title. Unless Wikipedia has started recognizing Corporate personhood (and if that's the case, I missed the memo.) WP:BLP1E is inapplicable. I think there's an excellent chance that Kleargear is only notable for the case, though, and given the case really the subject of the coverage, a rename is warranted. WP:NOTNEWS is interesting here, but the most relevant guidance is really at WP:EVENT. There, we do have some international coverage, so WP:GEOSCOPE is modestly satisfied, WP:DEPTH as well, there is modest WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and given a possible appeal, it's difficult to estimate the chances of any possible WP:LASTING effect, some sort of precedent is plausible here given the novelty of the case, but far from assured. In short, we're left with a judgement call, and in view of those metrics, I lean toward retaining content per WP:PRESERVE, and titling it properly to correct issues of WP:UNDUE weight. If this is moved, I believe a redirect would be appropriate per usual practice. If there is a valid user for userfication, that would be my second choice in order to preserve content should an appeal to the Circuit Court happen. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously significant discussion from a multitude of secondary sources that satisfy both WP:RS and WP:V, and such references are located in multiple locations around the world. — Cirt (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wrong argument Company is not notable clearly fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG .The company is a very small one and company size was not criteria for inclusion as per closing admin.All coverage is only for the Case.A legal case about a company does not make the company notable as per WP:INHERITORG and WP:CRIME does not apply here.WP:NOTNEWS applies here the wide coverage it only for the case and not the company.DiMaria999 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC) — DiMaria999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename - ridiculously notable, clearly not the least bit deletable. However, I concur with Joe Decker's renaming arguments and Zhanzhao's redirect suggestion - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion IMHO notable per basic WP:GNG. There very well could be merit to a rename.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:Org ,WP:Notnews and WP:GNG.It has attracted news coverage due to the controversy but that does not make it pass WP:GNG.It was Kept, without any prejudice against opening another AfD after the current controversy has faded as per Closing admin in last AFD.DiMaria999 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC) — DiMaria999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as suggested above, or perhaps merge into an existing article that talks about the topic (Censorship in the United States, Freedom of Speech in the United States, ...). -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename - Case was cited and discussed in the May 2014 issue of the American Bar Association's GPSOLO eReport as one of two examples of emerging litigation related to "Nondisparagement Clauses" in consumer contracts.
Davis, N. C., Eskin, V. L., Catanzano, R. A., Vercammen, K., Axelrod, S. L., Romberg, S. L., ... & Firm, L. (2014). "The Yelper and the Negative Review: the Developing Battle Over Nondisparagement Clauses". GPSOLO eReport, May 2013, Vol 3 No. 10 p3-5.
SBaker43 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Joe Decker. There's a lot here, though it's fairly recentist for my tastes, it's clearly notable. The WP:EVENT concern... meh... it's real, I'll grant that, but it's got the coverage to at least push it towards the "likely to be notable" side. That said, it was a default judgment, and any remaining contentious parts of the case will probably deal with boring, hashed-out civil procedure issues with no lasting effect. And really... even if we got a nice substantive decision on contract law, is it likely to do much other than discuss the enforceability of penalty clauses? But that's all speculation, and I could honestly be really wrong. In short, I think WP:GNG is met, and that's enough for me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename -For all the reasons cited above. It's obvious. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename—not much else to add that hasn't been said better already. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Delay I'm not really sure enough time has passed here, since the events seem to be continuing to unfold (the most recent event in the article is only a few weeks ago), so it's hard to tell how sustained the coverage is going to be in the future. That said, Kleargear by itself doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and I honestly think the legal case wouldn't, either. I think we should either delete it now until it becomes notable or, if we decide to keep, we should again keep with no prejudice against re-nominating after the actual case has finished unfolding. I would lean towards deleting, because we generally don't keep articles up for things in case they might become notable in the future. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The company is not notable, but the case is. It's had substantial coverage beyond the WP:NOTNEWS threshold in Business week, Techdirt, and non-local news providers (for example, Houston and US News and World Report), as well as the source cited by SBaker43, above. Move to Palmer v. Kleargear.com to make the article name conform to the topic and content. TJRC (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete The Company is not notable fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG why should it be kept ? Further William Franklin Bermender has nothing to do with Kleargear controversy why has his NAME been put up he quit in 2007 .MOST OF THEM VOTING KEEP ARE NOT SAYING THE COMPANY IS NOTABLE ONLY THE CASE IS PLEASE DELETE AND REWRITE AN ARTICLE ON THE CASE.5.104.108.125 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion debate is only about the Company and it fails WP:GNG not on the case if you want to rename do it in Wikipedia:Requested moves not in WP:AFD.PLEASE DELETE IT the issue about the company not the case. 5.104.108.125 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As you are a new editor, who has only ever edited on this topic, and who has a very clear opinion about a subject who is not currently mentioned in the article... well, I have to recommend you read WP:PSCOI to determine whether some of it applies to you, as you, as a completely new editor, are likely unaware of it. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; the most important reasons to move the article, rather than delete it and recreate it with the new name (as championed by 5.104.108.125 and perhaps DiMaria999) are: 1) obvious waste of effort doing that. It's foolish to delete an article already written, only to re-write it trying to obtain the same content about the case; rather than pruning the existing article of bits that do not pertain to the case. 2) Doing so would violate WP:CC-BY-SA, which requires maintaining the list of contributors to the article. TJRC (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename: extended coverage of the legal case is sufficient for notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:27, 11 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. -- John Reaves 22:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oladele Bankole Balogun

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

A candidate, not a member of the House of Representatives. n0ot yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidate who does not pass WP:POLITICIAN on that basis, and has no strong or properly sourced claim of passing another notability criterion in its place. Also contains inappropriate personal details — we don't care what football club he's a fan of, or how many children he has — that nudge this just a bit too close to being a campaign brochure and a WP:NOTADVERTISING violation. Delete; no prejudice against recreation of a better-sourced and more appropriately encyclopedic version if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Being a local monarch in his hometown of Igarra (Akoko Edo Local Government Area of Edo State) + significant press coverage in reliable sources like Vanguard Newspaper, The Guardian (Nigeria) & Nigerian Observer 1 makes him pass at least 1 of the 4 guidelines stated in WP:POLITICIAN. PS: In Nigeria Towns make up LGA, LGA make up States and States make up a Country. He is a prominent ruler in Igarra.

Comment: What he has is an honorary traditional title for his contribution to his community. He is not even the major traditional ruler in his town. IMO does not pass WP:Politician and has not garnered sufficient coverage for WP:GNG. Darreg (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:29, 12 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 01:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sikuli

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 06:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. Refs provided are PR and developers' sites. A search turned up blog entries but not significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:40, 10 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. (see also the Sikuli AfD) j⚛e decker ^talk 02:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SikuliX

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

Non-notable product. At best, it should be merged to Sikuli. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sikuli if it survives its own AfD, or delete otherwise. It is a clear subtopic of Sikuli, and its separate coverage is impractical. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:15, 5 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 Nenagh. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil Aonach Urmhumhan

(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) 17:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom / WP:NN. Tá an-bhrón orm :/ - Alison ^❤ 19:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Tipperary~~ Nenagh per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect', on the one hand it's great that there are so many Gaelscoilanna now that there mere existence isn't notable, but that means that having articles for each individual one on Wikipedia is overkill. Nenagh is probably a better target for the redirect than Tipperary in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to Nenagh per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:40, 10 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 Kevin Reynolds (director)#The Resurrection. -- John Reaves 22:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

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

I'm not convinced this meets our notability criteria. I've removed a lot of promotional and BLP stuff and only after doing that did I search for recent discussion of it. I can find very little to none in the last year, and I note that the funding is crowd-sourced. This article may have been created in order to aid that. I'm also confused about the release date, in the article 2016 but [6] says 2015 - perhaps lack of funding has postponed this. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me Doug, but crowdfunding has far less to do with notability than does coverage... no matter the topic. Just saying.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as premature since filming has not started and is not guaranteed to, per the notability guidelines for future films. If filming does start, we can reevaluate the topic to see if it meets the general notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to director Kevin Reynolds (director)#The Resurrection for now as being just a tad TOO SOON for its own article. Project is "in development" and yes, due to title, returns a great number of false positives. But as the topic of this project already meets WP:GNG and is receiving coverage in such as Christian Post, The Guardian, Variety, Patheos, Inquisitr, Hollywood Reporter, Movies in Focus, Slashfilm, Huffington Post, Daily News, Coming Soon, JoBlo, Deadline, we can certainly consider reversing the redirect when the project begins filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a partial merge. Reviewing the article's page history, it looks like development started around March 2012, so that's over 2 years languishing in development. So we should not have a stand-alone article that pretends a film is about to happen. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different film productions move at different paces. We both remember other allowed articles on film topics that were in talks and discussions and pre-production for years before ever getting made. The importance toward determining if notable enough to be written of somewhere within these page, even if never made, is the coverage... and THAT we have with this topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Considerable work has been done on the article, so that it should be available to move back to article space if and when the film is completed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication is fine before redirecting the title. This saves the article and its history for undeletion when it is decided that breadth of its consistent coverage [7][8][9][10][11][12] [13] [14][15][16][17], [18][19] meets WP:GNG and shows WP:NFF (paragraph 3) as met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:57, 5 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 Newmarket-on-Fergus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ballycar National School

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

NN primary school of children ages 4-12. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newmarket-on-Fergus per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newmarket-on-Fergus per precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newmarket-on-Fergus seems to be the only sensible option. Finnegas (talk) 11:10, 8 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 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samjith Mhd

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

Poorly-sourced promotional biography of a film editor. The only available sources seem to be self-published sources. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. - Mr X 16:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - MrX is right. Fails all notability tests. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No good coverage in sources, still lacks more independent sources. Present sources like [20] and [21] are self-published and promotional. Fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:BASIC A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:06, 4 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. -- John Reaves 23:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pucelik

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

plain promo The Banner talk 23:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion of pseudoscience Neuro-linguistic programming. Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Selective merge to neuro-linguistic programming. Neuro-linguistic programming may be a pseudoscience but, like it or not, the amount of attention it has got in reliable sources over the past 40 years makes it a notable pseudoscience. That makes the claim in the article that its subject is one of the founders of NLP a definite assertion of notability which, as it is sourced to a volume co-edited by one of the generally-acknowledged founders of NLP, can be presumed verified. However, as that assertion is not elaborated in the article, it currently does no more than warrant a mention in neuro-linguistic programming, and needs that elaboration, reliably sourced from secondary sources, to establish notability for a stand-alone article. PWilkinson (talk) 12:23, 29 June 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 16:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Considering your comments I improved the article: added information and sources. I think that now it is logically structured and the moment of how all that NLP thing started is now described and can be verified (John Grinder wrote about Frank Pucelik as the third developer of NLP in his Whispering in the wind, for example). If you have any suggestions on improving the quality of the article I’ll be grateful to see them. Alexandra Garagulya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Garagulya (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still plain promo. The Banner talk 11:34, 7 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. Secret ^account 01:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paco_Ahlgren

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

Nominating for deletion. I believe this to be a vanity page for self-promotion of this blogger. His only possible claim to notability is a self-published book that was reviewed by his local hometown newspaper.

Per the notability guidelines for authors, an author is notable if:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Certainly none of the preceding apply in this case. Snookyboo (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book award isn't notable. The Midwest Review isn't notable it's basically a review mill. The Durango review is reliable but a local source, and one review isn't enough for #4 (prefer 3 to 5 reviews depending on source quality). The film would be notable, but it appears stalled. -- GreenC 03:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an award notable or un-notable? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you can see in the history of Eric_Hoffer_Award, this award is so non-notable that its was deleted a while back. Awards for notability purposes are typically the large ones like Pulitzer or Nobel. Per WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Eric_Hoffer_Award is not well known or significant among literary awards. -- GreenC 14:17, 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 16:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage is insufficient to establish notability. Having one's book optioned is no guarantee that it will ever be turned into a film. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Author is notable having gained a Eric Hoffer Award and coverage in The Durango. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR #3 requires multiple book reviews, and normally of a national media rather than local sources. See comment above re: the award. -- GreenC 14:17, 11 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 Speedily deleted per G5. The article was created by a sockpuppet of SpongebobLawyerPants, now blocked. -- Atama頭 19:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Meyer incident

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

Article about a non-notable close encounter with aliens or cryptozoological creatures. I am unable to find any available sources. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 16:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have expressed views relating to overpopulation being a problem

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

This topic does not meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, these sources are not reliable and obviously biased. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. This list is just too broad and too trivial, on a par with List of people who have expressed the view that war is bad or List of people who have expressed a preference for dogs over cats. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I was the person that compiled the article and as far as Bias is concerned I would be as happy to include all references the four mentioned in the article [22], [23], [24] & [25] and also any from opposing factions such as from The Truth magazine or from activistpost.com. If editors here are happy with the credibility of the organisations concerned and that they are not connected organisations then that sounds good. The main issue here is notability both of the people listed and that many of their quotes mentioned are frequently used time and time again. As far as the organisations that compiled the quotations I know that both the Population Institute Canada and Population Matters have large patrons boards that would be the envy of many research/advocacy groups who all have their own Wikipedia pages. PIC patrons PM patrons. They are notable organisations and I had hoped that the notability of the others would be shown by their content.

Admittedly there is a difficulty with the searchability of the title. Population concern advocates or whatever you want to call them don't have easy to use terminology like “environmentalist”. If anyone has views on a less cumbersome a name for the article that would be welcome. It is a notable topic with people on both sides of the argument compiling notable quotes from notable people. Gregkaye (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial? The topic has so much controversy that some of the people mentioned have had to really go out on limbs and leave organisations to express them. Gregkaye (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overpopulation is not trivial. A list of people expressing their views about it (or pollution or prostitution or religion ...) is. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should we create "List of people who have expressed views relating to cats being a problem" next?, In all seriousness I'm failing to see the whole point of this article.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with cats is never be likely to drive people to starvation or to drive down water table levels to dangerous levels. Away from the world where some people have the fortune to have the spare time to edit Wikipedia others are increasingly pushed into struggle for survival lifestyles. They face unnecessary difficulties that, amongst other things, reduce their chances of education and betterment. Its fine if you do not think that the issue of population is important or that it has as little importance as an issue with cats. And perhaps that's where there is a difference. For me the notability thing is the lack of political attention that is given to the issue of population. Many senior scientists and leaders in their fields say that population is a centrally important issue for all our futures and yet so few senior political figures take on the issue as their responsibility. Peoples of various regions of the world are coming finding it increasingly hard to feed themselves while persisting with unsustainable birthrates that will quite likely end in famine or war. Please don't trivialise this with talk about cats. Gregkaye (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you ever heard of Sarcasm? ... The cat thing was just that... –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is disputing the notability of overpopulation as an issue of concern. It's this list that isn't notable or encyclopedic. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's great news and I really wish it was true. Its astounding how little support the issue has got and how much resistance has been given in various areas of environmentalism. Cats have been mentioned twice here for no apparent reason. I know that you have heard of serious issues and population's one of them. And there is a notable gap between the conclusions on the topic of some of the worlds leading thinkers and our responses across our societies. Gregkaye (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're invoking WP:SOAPBOX. It's not even a contentious topic. Everybody agrees overpopulation is a problem. We just don't need a list of people reiterating the obvious. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of the importance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom & several above. Topic is not notable. List serves no real purpose and does not contribute significantly to the encyclopedia. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 17:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ho hum, but see Environmentalist#Notable_environmentalists for an similarly meaningless list. Gregkaye (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry If I'm a bit dense here but that link is a list within an article .... This AFD article is just one huge list of meaningless crap?... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That list is indeed within an article, where there is a lot more context for the list and, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, people are often known for their environmentalist views while simply expressing a view is rarely notable. The subject of this AfD notes people like Confucious, whose contribution was "Excessive (population) growth may reduce output per worker, repress levels of living for the masses and engender strife," at a time when the world's population was 1/2000 of what it is now. The views expressed by those in this list need context, which the list doesn't provide. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the likely deletion of this article is being circumvented by some edits to {{population}}.[26] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the changes and asked the editor to begin a discussion on the talk page so a consensus could be reached. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 17:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Utterly subjective list with no logical inclusion parameters. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The topic is far from trivial, but ... being associated somehow with an issue does not make a coherent list. My suggestion is to limit the scope of the list, perhaps to something along the lines of Notable population control activists. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This allows for totally unrelated to notability inclusion, and it is unclear what a view would be. If someone say "overpopulation could never be a problem" do they get included? If they said it once at a bar, and it was reported in a gossip rag do we include it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 8 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 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a Valley by the Sea

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything about this album, and I did a pretty thorough search.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:14, 30 June 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 16:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of meeting WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 10 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 List of Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Middle schools. Deor (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ammons Middle School

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

Non-notable middle school. The only notability is an award to a former principal, not to the school. Jacona (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school and its faculty have received numerous awards and were mentioned in trade publications. That satisfies notability. A few links were dead but I dug up some PDFs for them. edit: I've recovered them with the wayback machine. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if a faculty member is notable, the school is therefore notable?Jacona (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that the awards themselves (as distinct from the institution granting the awards) are notable? Epeefleche (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. I really don't think the awards are notable. Nor is this middle school.Jacona (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe primary sources support notability -- we need secondary sources to satisfy GNG. And I don't at this point see the indicated awards as of themselves notable. And I don't believe every school that has a student participating in the spelling bee is ipso facto notable. Does the Keep !voter have other reasons for his !vote? Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the bee: the students were semi-finalists in the 2012 & 2014 Scripps bees, and won a regional bee held by Miami Herald. Scripps isn't just a bee, it is the Super Bowl of bees and is broadcast live on ESPN and national television, and the student received national attention for her participation (she is the cover shot for many reports). Only 281 students out of 11 million participate in the Scripps bee annually. It should be worth noting, that accolades for the institution and its students are at least somewhat significant as the school is a Title 1 school serving at risk, low income and minority students. These students generally perform below national average or even grade level yet this school consistently ranks high. Here are a few mentions I dug up about the school. (also: I am not a "he") -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misread my comment. I didn't refer to it as "a bee." I referred to it as "the spelling bee." I'm not sure with whom you are disagreeing. My comment stands. And, btw -- the students who made the semi-finals aren't themselves eligible as a result of that (let alone their school). Though ... kudos to them. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district, per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary elementary schools are presume non-notable. See for guidance WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Carrite (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 10 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ufer

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BCAST, as the only statements of significance appear to be of memorable broadcast moments and the founding of an insurance company. Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also appears to fail WP:ENT as is only known locally. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinding my vote based on additional information. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Well he may not be known around the world he is a major figure in Michigan and other parts of the USA. With over 36 years as a public figure in Michigan makes him worthy of being here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeBK (talk • contribs) 13:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be enough national coverage of Ufer, including his obituary picked up by the Associated Press, to establish his general notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NTRACK as the former world record holder in the 440 yard (quarter mile) run. Also passes WP:GNG as a figure who has received significant coverage in the mainstream media, including national media outlets such as ESPN.com (here), The Sporting News, Associated Press, and the Chicago Tribune including here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the in-depth coverage provided in several reliable sources above. Cbl, if you can find a reliable (in this case, official) source for the subject's 1942 world record in the 440-yard dash, I would be inclined to call for a "speedy keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sporting News should be a reliable source. In its obituary for Ufer, November 14, 1981. p. 59, it says that Ufer "held the world indoor mark for the quarter-mile in 1942." Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the 440 record was mentioned in the AP obituary, too, but we both know how legends grow and obituaries soften reality. Honorable mentions become All-Americans, etc.; I've seen a lot of "inflation" in sports-writing, and the writers rarely check original and/or official sources. I would trust the Big Ten and University of Michigan track & field media guides -- they should list all official records set at UM and Big Ten events. Also, if he set an official world record at the Big Ten Conference championships, wouldn't there be contemporary newspaper coverage? Perhaps even in national newspapers like The New York Times? In any event, the subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG based on the several feature articles you've already found. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an on-line progression of the half-mile world record, but The Sporting News is pretty reliable -- not a local newspaper. Also, the United Press in this 1944 article said he remained at that time the world record holder in the 440. The Bentley Historical Library also says it here as does the Michiganensian here and The Ann Arbor News here. Cbl62 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just did a Google News archive search and I'm finding a hodge-podge of stuff from the 1940s, more or less contemporaneous. I found an interesting discussion on the Track & Field News blogsite on point here. We've got a record time (48.1), name of the previous record-holder, and the name of new record-holder who broke Ufer's time. Sounds pretty credible to me, especially when combined with the modern articles that were contemporary with his death. Part of the problem is that the International Olympics Committee and the world track body stopped recognizing non-metric records in the early 1900s, and treated American world records in non-metric distances as non-records. I tweaked the text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:25, 7 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) 18:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arvida Middle School

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable middle school. Jacona (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. This does appear to be one of those rare middle schools with some notability.Jacona (talk) 16:20, 3 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 keep. - No valid reason nor policy was stated. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howrah Delhi Janata Express

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

It is not notable JDgeek1729 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fairly notable. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is one of the oldest trains that run in India being introduced in 1946. Although Indian Railways wanted to discontinue it but it has been given a new lease on life. Hence it should not be deleted.Superfast1111 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major named long-distance train. Can't imagine a similar US one, say the City of New Orleans, going up for AfD. Might this be a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 00:32, 5 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 a-11, made up by article author. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Leinadia

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

Notability (WP:N) Chaveyd (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This series, and the only book listed for this "Fantasy novel series", are unknown to Amazon, Abebooks, bookfinder.com, WorldCat, isfdb.com, and Google books. The only hits in Google for "The Chronicles of Leinadia" + "Kilkelly" (the author's last name) are to Wikipedia and sources that copy Wikipedia; and the same is true for the equivalent search on the only book in the series. Chaveyd (talk) 14:09, 3 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 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rivista

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

orphan, unsourced one-line stub about an apparently non-notable web content management system. A lot of false positives, in the sense of "revue" or "magazine" in Spanish/Italian languages, but I was only able to find a couple of trivial mentions in niche magazines about this web application. Cavarrone 12:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and suffers from WP:MILL issues, thus should be deleted per WP:NOTCATALOG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software (CMS) stub article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search for Godengo Rivista turns up PR, incidental mentions, and blogs, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 09:32, 5 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 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowra Plaza

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

This is an entirely unsourced article on a shopping centre of 15 stores. I am a pretty hardcore inclusionist when it comes to infrastructure like shopping centres, but to use a bit of Australian slang, having an article on one this small is taking the piss. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N, search failed to find any useful references to support notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY - no evidence of notability from article or Google search. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. article makes no claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. SNOW candidate. Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 7 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 that further editorial attention is needed, but keep for now.Mojo Hand (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regional handwriting variation

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

Original research. Handwriting variation exists – see handwriting – but I see nothing in this article that supports that English handwriting varies regionally, in the text or the few references. The variations identified seem to be from foreign languages and archaic ones, so nothing to do with modern English handwriting. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this had been created recently I would have been tempted to push it back to the creator and tell them to reference it properly. However, the article started in 2002 so maybe there is some agreement that the topic and content are suitable (though the referencing is not). I think the nominator has misunderstood the scope of the article. It is explicitly not restricted to English although it does only seem to deal with "modern". By "regional" is meant regions of the world. If the references are improved I think it will emerge that most of this is not original research. Thincat (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't checked how old it is and that is quite old, back to when our notability standards were quite different. As for English/non-English of course other languages include variations but that's as they are other languages with more or fewer letters, accents, one or more distinct glyphs etc.. The article barely scratches the surface of this. But mostly the topic is entirely unsourced: the references aren't on regional handwriting variations at all but on general variation and the problems it can cause.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not about variations in "English handwriting" as the nominator understood. It's about variations in the way people write Latin letters and Arabic numerals across various global regions, spanning different cultures and languages. The references and citations could use improvements, but this topic has merit. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For global variation in handwriting styles, we already have some good coverage in the articles Calligraphy, Palaeography, and Penmanship. One reference I was able to find about this topic is the article SURVEY OF HANDWRITING STYLES BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION. I'm still undecided about this article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:51, 4 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. It is 8-2 in favor of deletion if I have done a vote count, but Tomwsulcer sources on the subject on whether she meets WP:GNG wasn't properly countered, which made most of the delete arguments moot. Secret ^account 00:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Owen-Taylor

AfDs for this article:

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

Search of subject's name in Google News turns up only three hits, all of them including only passing mentions of this person. I found no wider indication of notability elsewhere (the "enough sources" mentioned in the previous deletion nomination include a moment when she recognized someone else for getting into the Commonwealth Games, a comment she made on the need for a park upgrade, and a time when she got her car broken into-- none of which is about her or discusses her in any depth) . Article therefore appears to fail the requirements of WP:GNG on these grounds. KDS4444^Talk 11:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, specific case aside, judging notability on the sole basis of Google News currently lacks sense, especially since January, when Google stopped its news archives service. Actually GNews only reports news of the last month or so. --Cavarrone 12:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor political figure at the local level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider Brisbane to be large and internationally famous enough that its municipal councillors could qualify in principle for substantive and well-sourced articles, but this is neither of those things. And indeed, Cavarrone is correct that notability cannot be judged solely by Google News hits alone, as Google News aggregates only a few weeks worth of coverage and fails to locate coverage extending further back than that — so GN is a good tool for verifying the accuracy of a fresh claim of notability (e.g. a new article about a politician who just won an election that took place last week), but is not an infallible gauge for the notability of a politician who's been in office since 2008. So no prejudice against future recreation if somebody can create a good and properly sourced new version of an article about her, but this version as written is a delete due to its reliance on exclusively primary sources and lack of any real content more substantive than the fact that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Elected politician, member of the governing body of Australia's 3rd largest city, population about 2.25 million. Passes WP:POLITICIAN on that basis, in my view. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that's lacking, though, is reliable sourcing. Even a person who cleanly passes one of our inclusion guidelines is still not entitled to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article, and can still be deleted for failing to cite reliable source coverage — the only concession being that it can subsequently be recreated again if real sourcing shows up. It's not the mere assertion of notability that gets a person past one of our notability guidelines — it's the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to verify the assertion. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, Brisbane's a big city, but they also have a big city council, with 26 councilors. Considering WP:POLITICIAN, subject doesn't meet criteria #1 (international, national, or subnational (i.e. province-wide) office), #2 (local politician with significant press coverage), or #3 (meeting general notability criteria), so I'm not sure how you'd consider this part of the guideline a basis for keeping the article. Agyle (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and Notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter what position she holds if she is not active enough to generate significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not find significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. I found several sources of one-sentence mentions of her presence at various meetings or events, photo captions in which she is mentioned, but I don't consider these to be significant coverage (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8). This Courier Mail article provides a medium amount of coverage about projects on which Owen-Taylor commented. Agyle (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Carrite. There are numerous references in Australian newspapers, although I agree that each one is often only a sentence or two, or a quote here or there. Thing is, this lady is a very active politician, going everywhere, attending to all kinds of issues, active, busy, quoted on many topics, and maybe it is just that democracy is much more active in Australia than in the USA. She is clearly an important figure in Brisbane politics -- as pointed out a city of several million people, Australia's third largest, and most notably mentioned in the movie On the Beach as one of the last holdout cities before Melbourne succumbed to radiation, in case anybody saw that movie. She has many important tasks in Brisbane government: deputy council chair, deputy finance chairperson, economic development, and the Lord Mayor on multicultural affairs, whatever that is, but is sounds like they could give her a stallion to ride around for that one, plus costume, issuing edicts maybe even, issuing firebolts and epithets. Of the numerous references, several mention her in depth: this article is almost entirely about her, she is covered extensively in this article, she was a prime focus when angry residents protested her office, and she was featured prominently in this article. Taken together, in sum, with multiple in-depth independent references supplemented by numerous articles in which she is clearly active, quoted, working on many projects, etc, suggests she clearly meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tomwsulcer, I've checked out your links, my good man, and the problem with the articles that you mentioned-- and it is a common one on Wikipedia-- is that they aren't really about her, they are about a park or a ward or a project and though she may be quoted extensively in the article that doesn't really make the article about her (if we were discussing an article on the park or the ward, these articles would totally go towards verifying their notability, though!). That is why I don't think they add up to bona fide notability (at least, not yet, anyway! But perhaps soon...?) Just some thoughts. I hear Brisbane is a lovely city, though. KDS4444^Talk 04:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - KDS4444, I see somewhat your point, in that the current eighteen references focus on what she does (her actions, policies, statements etc) rather than who she is (her beliefs, backstory, education etc). But my question is, can we separate what we do from who we are? Can we separate actions from identity? My sense is they are tightly intertwined, that what we do as humans and who we are as humans are inseparable, that we define ourselves by our actions. Consider American politician Barack Obama: there are numerous references about what he does in his biographical article. What does he do? Obama signs this bill, does this, signs this bill, or this, or won't fund this project, and so forth. Who is Obama? He is the person doing these things. These references are in Obama's wiki-article, rightly so, because they establish notability; if we remove these references on the basis that the focus of each one is not strictly about Obama and who he is, then the article is reduced to practically nothing. Similarly, by the numerous references about Owen-Taylor's actions as a leading politician in the 3rd largest Australian city, a picture emerges of who she is: builder of playgrounds, roads, waterways (which resulted in conflict with residents etc), pushing forward a $215 million restoration of Brisbane's city hall, etc. It may not seem important to people living in other countries, but it is important to Australians. Further, there are sixty references to Owen-Taylor in the Courier Mail but viewing them is blocked by a paywall; I was only able to view one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agyle says it's a big city, but the important fact is that the city has 25 such councilors plus the Lord Mayor. How is this person more notable than the others? – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of other councilors and their notability is not relevant here; the question is, is she notable? I believe she is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN, extensive searching found no significant coverage in any source, let alone reliable secondary sources. SPACKlick (talk) 10:55, 14 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) 03:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Postmarks

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

I nominated this article WP:PROD, but someone challenged it. I then looked for the better and multiple references referred to in their reasoning for contesting the PROD, but can't find sufficient breadth/depth for them to pass WP:NMG or WP:GNG. Aside from creating three albums - the first of which apparently is "well reviewed" but is one of the barest articles around, and which also lacks refs - I can't presently how they get close to WP:NMG. Rgds Trident13 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strange that you didn't find coverage. The first page of Google results when I searched led to all these: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. I didn't feel the need to venture onto the second page of results as notability is already clear. --Michig (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dug a bit deeper and also found: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. A more through search would likely find more. --Michig (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC) ...and [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. --Michig (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Upon doing a search in music rags as well as a google search it seems that there is plenty to support this article being saved. I do agree the article is not the prettiest page on wikipedia, but I think we should tag it for what needs to be done and allow it to grow. I do find this group to be notable.--Canyouhearmenow 12:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even ignoring the sources above, the RSs cited in the article were probably enough for a claim of notability. Cavarrone 12:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But the article needs to be edited. There are sufficient WP:RS results from Google searches to pass WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SNOW. Sources are abundant online as shown above; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 17:07, 4 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. Deor (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infotisement

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

This article does not cite any references or sources. And I don't think it's notable enough for wikipedia. A8v (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Advertorial. As far as I can tell, they're the same thing, but feel free to prove me wrong. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely invented term without any use outside one person's definition; all 'print pieces as ads' are just known as advertorials or paid advertisements, not this. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; see also Talk:Shockvertising. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 7 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 Natalie_Duncan#Discography. -- John Reaves 23:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live In Real World Studios

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

The album have no good coverage and independent evidences. No reliable sources, hence fails under WP:NALBUMS. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 05:20, 17 June 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 01:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 25 June 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) 07:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Natalie_Duncan#Discography seems to be the best option here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:54, 3 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 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Mae

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO, depending on single source to support claims of notability. Google results look like press release material, assuming my bubble is being honest. Dolescum (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 18 June 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 01:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have media coverage but it's mostly local and interviews: local press[62][63], radio[64], and TV[65][66][67][68][69]. Websites of uncertain reliability[70][71]. Not convinced of notability yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:30, 25 June 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) 07:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete--There is no major news source regarding this band in the music trades in either Canada or the US. This fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO. I also would not think that a group that is not fully formed or has just recently added players to their group would have had enough time to gain notability. As early as 2013 they were still looking for members>[72]. This one needs to wait until it gains more notability.Canyouhearmenow 12:46, 3 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 Lake_County,_Illinois. -- John Reaves 23:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lake County Sheriff's Association

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

Non-notable association. I'm sure they do great work and all, but there are thousands of these local sheriff's associations in the US alone, each local in scope. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 18 June 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 01:15, 25 June 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) 07:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about merging as a new section of the article Lake County, Illinois + redirect? It may be a constructive solution. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'm all for merges but the problem is that there are no sources and nothing worth mentioning. They have 314 members and are a typical sheriff's association, ie: you have to be an employee of select departments of the county to be a members. It isn't a public support group and they don't claim to have actually ever done anything other than exist. There really isn't anything to merge. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 08:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that when I did proper online research I found nothing substantial (WP:RS) about the organization. You are apparently better informed in this area so I'll trust your opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & Keep-- Wouldn't it be better to do as suggested above and merge this into the abovementioned article? I agree the organization may or may not be the most notable, but none the less it is a viable part of that area, city or county. The fact that it is a professional association affiliated with the police would in my opinion make it somewhat notable. Maybe not grand, but notable. I understand also the claim that they have never done anything, but a look at their calendar does show that they are involved inside of their community and meeting their mission statement as demonstrated here> [73], [74], [75] and here> [76]. Seems that would be worth at least merging into the article although I agree its not notable enough to garner it's own page.Canyouhearmenow 13:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm a member of the association of winegrowers and winemakers in the village where I live and I can imagine that a mention in the article about the village would be enriching even though there are no independent sources about our organization ... it's hard to say. Lakecosa looks like a bigger association, undoubtedly :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable independent sources with significant coverage, nothing to say. --Bejnar (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Again, I also think there is not enough notability to justify this subject having it's own page, but I certainly see where this subject should be merged into the abovementioned article. I believe that its importance is to bring yet more notability to said article because it is a program within its jurisdiction.Canyouhearmenow 20:58, 11 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. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 23:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike O'Brien (Michigan politician)

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

No-office political candidate that lost a 2012 election; strongly non-neutral and article abandoned after election. Probably does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) but difficult to tell yet because of all the political spam and polling coverage. Closeapple (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2012#District 6, as the person doesn't seem to be separately notable; he's just another candidate who lost against incumbent Fred Upton in one of Upton's numerous elections. It has 38 references, but it seems like the vast majority of the sources are of the kind that aren't worth much for notability: (1) pure self-sourced campaign advertising material and "biographies" from conflict-of-interest political organizations; (2) updates about polls from time to time during the election season, not biographical material; (3) announcements of campaign stops; (4) short mentions in multi-candidate summaries during campaign season. It appears that the user who was behind this non-neutral article didn't even believe in the article except as a temporary campaign tool: He simply abandoned Wikipedia when it appeared that the candidate wasn't going to win. The only valid edit since the 2012 election was an uninvolved user adding one line mentioning that this person lost. --Closeapple (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without large amounts of biographical coverage, candidates for congress are not notable. An example of a notable candidate for congress is Mia Love. Of course, she had a biography before she announced any intention of running for congress. I know, I created it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the election (even if the standalone article were deleted outright, he'd still be at least mentioned in that one anyway, so a redirect is legitimate). Unelected candidates do not warrant coverage in Wikipedia just for being candidates; John Pack Lambert is exactly correct that having already established notability before becoming a candidate for Congress is the primary way in which an unsuccessful candidate for Congress can actually get over our notability bar. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 2 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) 07:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Closeapple. Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bearcat. Tiller54 (talk) 16:56, 12 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 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Hills, Saskatchewan

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

Notability of this community not verified by reliable secondary sources. Google search for "Strawberry Hills" Saskatchewan -wikipedia yields essentially nothing but real estate websites. Neither Statistics Canada nor the CGNDB, which would be reliable secondary sources, recognize the place within the RM of Aberdeen No. 373. [77] [78] [79] [80] Past consensus for similar articles is that country/rural residential subdivisions (real estate developments) are not inherently notable simply for existing. Hwy43 (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Hwy43 (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable small-scale housing development. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:11, 16 June 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 21:02, 24 June 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 June 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:31, 25 June 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) 07:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable area. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:18, 3 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donghua Liu

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

Almost-notable businessman currently enjoying his fifteen minutes' fame on the local blogs. Page is a magnet for BLP violations, not just of Liu but of people he has allegedly done business with. Listing at AFD to nip these problems in the bud Daveosaurus (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New Zealand is currently in the build up to the New Zealand general election, 2014; immigration and campaign funding are issues; Donghua Liu is a recent immigrant who may or may not have given to one or two political parties. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having reviewed the extensive .nz coverage I'm not seeing any depth of coverage of Donghua Liu. It's conceivable that there's Chinese language coverage (https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=%22Donghua+Liu%22+zealand+site%3Acn seems to give a lot of likely hits) but I'm not in a position to evaluate that coverage and it's unclear how much is a translation of the .nz coverage back to .cn rather than real coverage of his life before he came to .nz. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the sake of BLP s everywhere. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone is notable for unspecified "controversies" which the sources show are WP:BLP1E concerning a current political campaign. Please recreate this article after the election, providing sources showing WP:N and suitable for writing a BLP are found. Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - spectacularly non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP policy, and because there is no evidence of any long-term notability of this individual. If there is a significant political scandal, it needs due and proper coverage in articles on the politicians concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I meant to !vote when I did the DELSORT listing. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not super worthy of a wikia life story. Puppet was writing attack story - banned now - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arf%C3%A6st_Ealdwr%C3%ADtere - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even absent the BLP problems, I'm not seeing a compelling case for notability. Worth a brief mention in Maurice Williamson as being involved in his downfall, but otherwise that's about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. In its current state the article makes no claim of notability. It used to have another sentence, containing the magic word "notable", but it was ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 09:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as should be covered in the 2014 election, Williamson, and Cunliffe articles. A one-off issue, not notable of itself. NealeFamily (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's received a large amount of coverage re Williamson and Cunliffe (which are two separate issues - not one offs!). There was attention paid to him specifically when it turned out his initial statement to the New Zealand Herald was inaccurate. Ballofstring (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "his initial statement to the New Zealand Herald" do we have anything but hearsay that this statement exists and / or contains any specific claims? My understanding is that it was not public. Do we have any evidence that he's ever said anything publicly about any anything? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:08, 3 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) 07:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any claim to notability is inherited, failing WP:INHERITED, also fails WP:NTEMP as there is no indication of ongoing notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:07, 4 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 E.J. Altbacker. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Wars

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 19:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E.J. Altbacker for now, although I'm unsure if he'd even meet WP:BIO. I found all of two sources: Publisher's Weekly review, Morton Report.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 18 June 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:54, 25 June 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) 07:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, and I agree with Brainy J. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:26, 4 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. Jenks24 (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Badr bin Ahmad Al-Sabah

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

Maybe it's a spelling problem, but I can't source this, not mentioned at House of Sabah, etc. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 June 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) 07:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's entirely or largely a cut/paste from Royal Ark, which is not to the best of my knowledge a reliable source. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:00, 3 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roller sport in India

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

No indication that this is notable enough for a stand alone article. Nothing here to merge elsewhere, just a couple of sentences and an external link. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was significantly expanded after this AfD nomination. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ see below No criticism of the nomination (the article was in pretty poor shape at the time), but post-expansion this pretty clearly meets WP:GNG. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't seen any other "Roller sport in..." articles to judge by, not sure how we judge GNG against this, to be honest. I am genuinely curious here: would be also have Bicycling in Mexico or Jogging in France? The closest parallel I can find is Skateboarding in China which I think is problematic and full of original research. I'm open minded, but not convinced that the many thousands of "sport" in "country" articles would be so obviously notable. Perhaps the unusual exception, but not all and not just because there are some articles that talk about the topic in a general way. At this point, I'm thinking this should be part of some other article (general interest sports in India type article) and not stand alone. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've nothing against a merge to Sport in India, which I think is the most obvious target for a redirect. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sport in India. As a matter of fact, after a few minutes thought I think a merge would actually be preferable to having a separate article - changing !vote accordingly. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)We have a whole family of "Sport in India" at Template:Sport in India §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Many of those are probably unnecessary content forks, though - Squash in India, Korfball in India, Handball in India and others are poorly-referenced and provide little encyclopedic information beyond, "This sport is played in India". Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those I understand like Cricket in India, but Table tennis in India and Handball in India? Fluffy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't judge the notability of the topic by the current state of the article -- Table tennis and Handball are quite big and I'm sure there are more sources, just no Wikipedia editor is interested in them. I have no opinion on Roller sport though. —SpacemanSpiff 15:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to exaggerate too much, but Beer pong is also very popular, but we don't have an article on it for each country. "Popular" doesn't automatically mean an activity is notable enough for a separate article when differentiated indiscriminately by national borders. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, did I say popular? Just see Kamlesh Mehta (one example) to see why Table Tennis in India can be expanded properly or Dipika Pallikal for squash. —SpacemanSpiff 16:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you are missing the point. By that logic every "sport" in "country" should exist. It doesn't address why any "sport" in "country" is actually notable. Having a notable person play the sport isn't enough. That doesn't establish notability, only that it exists, as that notability isn't inherited. Notability isn't just references that talk about the subject, but why it is important (notable) in that particular country. Importance, not existence. Otherwise, it is a rats nest of unmaintained articles on sports that simply exist in various geographical areas. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE says: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity", so the criteria for a standalone article is neither importance, nor existence; it's the General Notability Guideline. This means that every "sport" in "country" article should not exist, but every "sport" in "country" that fulfils the GNG can have an article. The Discoverer (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking yourself into a circle. That is my point. Having a few articles that talk about a sport within a country isn't enough to pass GNG. Some examples are obvious, like baseball, NFL football and basketball in the US, football and cricket in India (and the UK of course). This isn't at that level, not even in the grey area. It is simply a sport that is played in that country and has a couple of articles mentioning it. So what. That isn't enough to meet the spirit or letter of GNG. And the key word in your reply is "necessarily". Just using common sense, a good start is "is that sport shown on national TV in that country?" or even the low, low bar of "is that sport taught in schools?". WHAT makes this notable? It surely isn't the few references that just talk about how skating EXISTS. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No Dennis, you are missing the point, I've shown why a particular sport is notable in a particular region/country. At the risk of OSE, in what way is this any different from Association football in Guadeloupe or Association football in the Turks and Caicos Islands or Bodybuilding in Australia. There are some topics that have significant coverage in reliable sources, thereby they are notable. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown sources that prove GNG, they are just talking about the activity of "skating, specifically in India". I can find lots of course that talk about beer pong here in the US, but that doesn't prove Beer pong in the United States is a notable topic. Anyway, I will let the closer decide, this is just going in circles. You think articles talking about skating == notability, I think you are misreading WP:GNG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you are clearly misreading things here -- I have never argued for keeping this article anywhere. I'm just against you lumping other articles in without doing a proper check on those subjects -- you seem to think that something passes notability only if it is the most popular sport, but that's simply not the case, we go by what sources say, plain and simple. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. That is not what I said. 2. If you are just arguing academics, please take it elsewhere as it doesn't belong on a discussion about this article. It isn't helpful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not arguing academics, you're the one that brought all the other articles into this discussion, and when you do that, you are going to get responses to it. —SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As Dennis Brown says, we need to see if the sport S is really notable in a country C and then worth creating an article about. In this case, I won't consider roller sports any notable in India. Of course, this is a comparative thing. Cricket in India or Football in India are more appropriate topics for Indian sports. I am incrementalist at many times and then one can argue that indiscriminate information of rollers in India is available and a long article is already created. And that's when we have to be comparative; compare roller sports in other countries and compare other sports in India. As current state of article goes, it has no references or external links to maybe some book which deals with the topic or maybe even an editorial on the sport's status in India. It just mentions notable players and venues. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very new article, informative.. Expanded by the original creator just everyday. Merging may degrade the recognition of this sport, it seems notable to for having own page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has relisted twice and has 4 tiny paragraphs, so I don't think it is being expanded daily. Interesting isn't the same as notable, just as using the word "rollerblade" in an article isn't the same as significant coverage. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 08:50, 3 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, 25 June 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) 07:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was expanded after being nominated for deletion. If not independently notable, a merge to Sport in India would be a functional Alternative to deletion (WP:ATD). The Sport in India article presently has almost nothing about roller sport in India except for one mention of roller skating. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two bronze medals and one other tidbit that could probably me merged (ie: a paragraph), so that is a reasonable way to WP:PRESERVE that data, while still preventing articles on minor sports within each country. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sport in India is quite a big article; doesn't that justify having smaller child articles to help manage the size of the parent artice? The Discoverer (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the topic is notable, but not just because it is too large. If the topic isn't notable (roller sports, for example), then the decision to include or not into the large article should not be decided here at AFD, but instead on the talk page of the larger article. The two bronze medal winners have their own articles, which is enough to satisfy WP:PRESERVE. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 03:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to Sport in India, and move on to another such article to merge (Squash in India, Korfball in India, Handball in India, etc.). (Do similar with that Skateboarding in China mess, too). Even after "significant expansion" since the start of this AfD, there's not enough material here for a content fork like this. See WP:SUMMARY. This entire stub's real content could be compressed to a single paragraph there, which is generally what a summary article like "Sport in India" should have on each entry to begin with, whether or not there are {{main}} articles for them. There shouldn't be a main article for a separate sport in India unless (as with, say, Cricket in India) its entry at that summary article is over-long. The "Sport in India" article itself, as a whole, is intended to be long, by its very nature as a summary listing. We do not have or need a separate "Sport-name-here in Country-name-here" article for every imaginable combination. There are far too many such pseudo-articles already (Australia is a particular mess, with topics further forked to "Women in Sport-name-here in Australia" articles filled with fluff citations to passing mentions of non-notable competitions and competitors.) PS: "Merging may degrade the recognition of this sport" is a non-argument, per WP:ADVOCACY: Wikipedia's job is encyclopedically cataloguing things that the sources in the real world tell us are notable, not trying to promote topics to greater heights of notability by ginning up articles to advance their "recognition". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Golf in India, Shooting in India and Chess in India, the three articles started by me in May 2012, have eventually, after several months, developed into proper articles (with the contributions of other editors). Is it possible to give this some time? The Discoverer (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BARE status, and has potential. This AfD was launched too soon. – S. Rich (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sport in India - Strongly disagree with the above, first WP:BARE is not a policy but an essay and second this article isn't worthy of it. People have looked for sources and it the topic of "Rollersports in India"" doesn't come up, "Rollersports" in "India" comes up from time to time. There is nothing to suggest this subsection of sports is notable enough for its own article.SPACKlick (talk) 10:59, 14 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. This has been relisted thrice, and no consensus has emerged. Continuation of discussion regarding this article can always continue on its talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitability thesis

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

Original research, fails WP:GNG. Pulling together ideas under a term more often used in multiple fields and in multiple ways not at all covered by the article (i.e. appears to be someone's pet term). Sources are insufficient but I'd also argue that even if a few more sources turn up the concept is insufficiently different from technological determinism to merit a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps an administrator can tell us whether this qualifies for speedy deletion as G4—two articles with the same name have previously been deleted. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe G4 is for material that was deleted via AfD whereas it appears the previous deletion was a PROD. I don't see a second deletion, but I do see a restoration after the PROD? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right about the pages in the deletion log—but I think this article has been deleted at AfD before under slightly different names; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The theory of inevitability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inevitability theorem. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those two may be related, but I'd be skeptical: they're also commonly invented terms in academia, as is "inevitability thesis". Scholar.google.com shows these terms are used by dozens of people, sometimes with their name attached like "Ash's inevitability theorem" or "Bachman's inevitability theorem", to refer to different ideas. Agyle (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Road to Serfdom. The inevitability thesis is something associated with F. Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom. The thesis is that any amount of central government control inevitably leads totalitarianism, i.e., a road to serfdom. The paper Hayek, Samuelson, and the logic of the mixed economy? is a secondary RS that discusses his thesis and and its reception. I was unable to find much evidence that the term is used widely with respect to technology. Of course, the rhetoric of inevitability is a much used rhetorical device to convince someone of a political position or future outcome. I agree that the article as it stands is OR. This topic is best redirected to the use that has some coverage. --Mark viking (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not redirect. [See new position below] There are dozens of different inevitability theses mentioned in scholarly journals, and it's difficult to locate sources on this one without rudimentary information about its origins, like who came up with it, when and where it was first written about, etc. The Wikipedia article's three cited sources do not seem to mention the term at all, from what I can tell. I'm opposed to redirecting to The Road to Serfdom; while other sources have used the term in discussing the book, the book itself doesn't seem to mention the term at all, and the Wikipedia article on the book doesn't use the term. Agyle (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge lede to Daniel Chandler and redirect there. After further research, I'm fairly certain the "inevitability thesis" as defined (i.e. "once a technology is introduced into a culture...what follows is inevitable development of that technology") was first published by User:Bacab in this article in 2007, and spread wildly since then, generally attributed to Daniel Chandler's 1995 lecture notes which User:Bacab cited in this article. It's a catchy term with a quotable definition. Chandler apparently never used the term, or stated anything close to the thesis' wording, but many bloggers, students, lecturers and scholars now discuss "Chandler's inevitability thesis" at length. I cited three independently-published reliable sources in the article, which are based on the article, but only the 2008 source discusses the topic at length, which is why I favor merging over keeping. The sources are wrong, but Wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Agyle (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge may be appropriate, but while the present text may primarily be about Chandler's idea, there appear to be other "inevitability theses" with similar if not greater visibility out there (like Hayek's, but it's not clear to me that any one is most prominent). So I'd hesitate to say redirect. I suppose if we find it's primarily Chandler and Hayek it could be handled by a redirect template on whichever it redirects to. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an instance were Wikipedia practice conforms with common usage. Whether Chandler called it the inevitability thesis or even invented it is irrelevant. See List of misnamed theorems: if we refused to use names on that basis we'd have almost no names for anything. (I'm wondering if a disambiguation page might be the best solution, but not sure.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation would certainly be needed if there were multiple articles covering different inevitability theses, for example if someone writes an article on Hayek's inevitability thesis or discusses it in the article on Hayek. Last I checked, only Bacab's ("Chandler's") inevitability thesis was covered in Wikipedia, which is why I currently favor redirection to Chandler, if the article is merged there. Agyle (talk) 20:22, 17 June 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 14:39, 17 June 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 11:57, 25 June 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) 07:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page or possibly a set index page, point to Hayek's at The Road to Serfdom, and Chandler's at Daniel Chandler. And yes a two item disambig page is possible if neither topic is primary. And neither looks that way to me. --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 11 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 : Please do not restore without investigating copyvio concern j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Trikha

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

Highly promotional article with unsourced biography part (only his works is sourced). Instead, the biography seems copyvio/too close paraphrasing from http://amantriikha.webs.com/biography See: Duplication Detector The Banner talk 13:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 25 June 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) 07:24, 3 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Wilcock

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

Spiritualism author with a best-selling book but no real mention outside the field. Sources of biographical info are basically nonexistent. Mangoe (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant borderline keep - sources are puffed-up, but NYT #8 author is clearly notable - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spent ages looking, there's no reliable references that can be found. Goblin Face (talk) 09:13, 14 June 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 01:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a borderline case, and it may be that Wilcock will become notable in the future, but WP:AUTHOR here does not seem to be met, nor is he identified as notable per WP:FRINGEBLP. He has two books that sold well. He appears in the sensationalist media talking about spiritualism. Wait a few years and see if his Q-rating takes off and we can consider whether this WP:BLP should be included. Until then, it's best to remove this biography for falling just below the notability thresholds. jps (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep because there are an adequate number of fools who buy his nonsense to push him over the bar on simple sales figures. However this article needs careful watching that it doesn't become a soapbox for unsupportable theorising.

We already have at least one article The Law of One (Ra material) (also at AfD and DRV) where that pile of inventive craziness seems to rest largely on citing David Wilcock as RS for that article. This is where it really begins to not belong on WP: shifting product as a book factory does not make you a fount of wisdom. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is prominently featured as a commentator in at least six episodes of the American TV show Ancient Aliens. Though the program is considered by many to be absolute woo, it IS a prominent show and he IS a prominently featured participant. (Just because you don't see his appearances in a Google search, doesn't mean he lacks verifiable notability.) Lou Sander (talk) 03:06, 23 June 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 13:10, 25 June 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) 07:23, 3 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. Will draftify/userfy on request. Also see no need to salt as this is the only time it's been created. Jenks24 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RTR0

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

This cryptographic hash function does not seem to be "widely used". Google brings up nothing but the Wikipedia article and the Github repository of the designer of its creator. No mention in Google Books or arXiv. Looks like it is a non-notable hash function that someone just made up one day. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A COI problem and a lack of independent sourcing? If it can't show something better than this, then lose it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 25 June 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) 07:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (move to Draft:RTRO without redirect) and salt RTRO: indeed no coverage, but apart from inline source code the article seems to be a good start for coverage of this topic in future. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I found a single passing mention in google scholar. In my opinion the chance of this page becoming useful is very small, so no need to draftify. Note that the github repo is named RTR[zero], but the article is RTR[o]. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't spot this "oh–zero" issue. Then changing my !vote to draftify to Draft:RTR0 and salt both RTRO and RTR0. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:46, 7 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Esk

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

Has not been elected to any office and does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Some outrageous commentary by Esk gained him some attention a few days ago, but since all the independent coverage is based on those statements we are dealing with a WP:ONEEVENT and not anything sufficient for a full biography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Maybe if he wins, there could be justification of keeping. Just being in the news recently does not mean you are notable. Cowlibob (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to amount of press coverage. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Article subject covered in multiple reliable sources. (I am the creator of this article.) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The recent coverage of his controversial comments just makes him a WP:BLP1E at this point, and not a topic that actually warrants permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia as of yet. If he wins election to office in November — or if this story somehow sustains itself into Christine O'Donnell territory (which it hasn't as of yet) — then he'll qualify for an article, but as things currently stand he does not. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E states that it should only be applied to "low-profile individuals", linking to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, which states in part that a high-profile individual is one that "...has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee." Therefore, it's arguable whether BLP1E applies to this individual; it depends on whether the subject's activities can be considered "attention-seeking". In any event, his primary election is tomorrow; if he wins, the article may change substantially. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he wins the primary, he still doesn't necessarily qualify for a Wikipedia article on that basis — per WP:POLITICIAN, in most cases a person has to win election to office, not just run for it, to qualify, and this single incident comprises a brief burst of coverage that hasn't been sustained over a long enough period to make him the exception to the rule. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Shabidoo | Talk 05:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. A clear case WP:BLP1E and this guy just had his 15 minutes of fame.- Gilliam (talk) 06:02, 25 June 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 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he got resoundly beaten in the primary so getting elected in November is more or less impossible at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a one-event that its very coverage seems to be designed for political gain. The guy recieved 5% of the vote in a primary election for the State House of Representatives. He does not pass politician, and this is a passing event that is not worth permanent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLP1E, despite how icky his comments are :-/ SarahStierch (talk) 17:32, 1 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) 07:22, 3 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. All 5 subcomittees speedily deleted per G12 (copyvios) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/TC 37/SC 2

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

Unsourced article, no indication of importance. The Banner talk 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion seems to be that the subject is not important. This pages are about the committees who develop important standards within the ISO organization. The standards deal with terminology, language resources, translating and interpreting. If there is something which should be added please suggest this. I am new to Wikipedia and am happy to take advice on improving this page. However, it is important. Peterrey (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)peterrey Peter Reynolds.[reply]

So far, you give no evidence that this sub committee is notable. You can try to prove this with reliable, independent (= non-ISO) sources. The Banner talk 07:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added {{Unreferenced}} tag but this seems a potentially valuable item Gregkaye (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per The Banner. We have a nice (but not overly-long) ISO/TC 37 article on the committee that could have a sentence or two about each subcommittee's scope and any key actions. But it doesn't seem like the subcomittee itself is independently notable. This suite of articles (there are several other /SC as well) seems too detailed, getting towards WP:NOTDIR of corporate structure and mostly just a way of collecting and organizating links to the various ISO standards each develops. That last idea sounds like a great scope of List of International Organization for Standardization standards as a unified and organized list. DMacks (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just found we already have that list (I fixed the link in my previous comment). If the committees handling them are particularly relevant (would someone actually want to search by that criterion?), could have an alternative page with them organized that way rather than strictly numerically. DMacks (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO/TC 37/SC 1 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO/TC 37/SC 5 here. Their articles:

are parallel subcommittes of the same parent, nominated with the same rationale and with same response, but fewer other comments. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty question: is ISO/TC 37 notable? The Banner talk 21:15, 27 June 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) 07:18, 3 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 21:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as described above. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge agree with User:The Banner, User:Joe Decker, and User:DMacks LuigiToeness (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make things even more confusing, I notice that ISO/TC 37/SC 3 and ISO/TC 37/SC 4 have both been deleted under G12 Unambiguous copyright infringement, although I've been unable to verify the documents the deletion notices claim were infringed. Before we go off into merge-land, we should figure out if the /SC1, 2, and 5 articles, being discussed here, have similar copyvio problems. Pinging @RHaworth: and @FreeRangeFrog: to get their input. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 6 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 per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Bones

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

As yet not notable enough to warrant an article. Some claims mean this doesn't qualify for Speedy Delete. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 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 as WP:G11, WP:G12, unambiguous promotion and copyvio from Bryson's IMDb page. I'll re-open this if anyone truly wants it to run a full AfD, but I can't find anything to prove notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Bryson

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

Non-notable, autobiography, no reliable sources. The sources given are all related to the subject, except for the IMDB one. The prizes don't appear to be notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:21, 3 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Barton (author)

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

Not everyone interviewed by the BBC is notable; this is an example. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of the level of coverage that would be needed to pass our notability guidelines for authors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage. -- GreenC 00:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence provided or found that his books have been reviewed. No evidence provided or found that he has been the subject of multiple RS articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 8 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. Clear consensus that this is either a non-notable BLP or, worse, a hoax. I'll also permaSALT the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suelong Sae Ma

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

This was already deleted twice as a BLP PROD and once more as a hoax (though in hindsight it probably wasn't that obvious). Sifting through Google results for an hour reveals zero mentions, in Thai or English, associating this name with any of the clubs he is claimed to have played for, except for non-reliable name-aggregating websites. Numerous SPA sock-puppets and IP accounts have kept recreating and removing the PROD templates, so please salt this too. Paul_012 (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - no reliable sources to verify any of the claims (not listed at Soccerway, for example) and even if true he probably does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. This article being a hoax is a distinct possibility. Giant Snowman 18:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red card permanently. No sources, possible hoax, repeated recreation, must definitely go. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Probably a hoax, with no indication of meeting the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this clear hoax. Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then salt. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 20:22, 6 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP with no support for any claims of notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:21, 9 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. Secret ^account 01:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wajam

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

Multiple issues with this article (neutrality, lack of notability, misleading section about "undesired installations" written in the most Wajam-favorable viewpoint possible).

Combined with the fact that representatives of the company regularly revert or change edits, either openly or via anonymous IP access from the Montreal area (where the company is based), and there are strong indications that this page is ripe for deletion. If an article is kept, it needs to be rewritten from a much more neutral viewpoint, with a reasonable amount of emphasis on the fact that this company's software is mainly installed on end user machines without their knowledge or consent.Jkjdeff (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Jkjdeff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I've had to manually create this page as nom buggered it up, I apologize in advance If I myself have screwed anything up!, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I'm afraid chaps and I really hope, if its not this, that you find a valuable product to work on. Current quotes are jokers and malware ... and that's just from one of several what is and remove pages http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_other-windows_programs/how-did-wajam-get-on-my-pc/5755a2e3-1acb-4910-a7c9-b75fdb43ddf3 . Gregkaye (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is another (tech blog) source, in French from a reliable publication. [81]. The Wajam talk page is a mess - a number of undisclosed COI company editors who don't appear to have been blocked, people ranting about the stealth install, not much constructive discussion of the content. (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

either keep or salt. I came across the page and found it useful when I got hit with a stealth install of Wajam. So I found the page useful, but I'm no stranger to AfD and know that is not a valid keep argument. And I know it'll be a pain to admin if you keep it, since the company has been very persistent in interfering with this article. So if you guys decide to delete, I'm okay with that, but I'd strongly suggest a salt to ensure it doesn't come back as corporate spam again. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- After a review of this article; searching through their references and looking at the magnitude of information that continually refers to this companies product as Malware, I find it hard for us to be able to keep this article in a place of WP:Neutrality. Seems that the argument that has been going on for some years now has created a wikipedia ghost (The subject themselves) that comes out to scare editors away should they try to make constructive contributions to the article. It is apparent that we have an blatant WP:COI when the company or its representatives are reverting things to paint the company in a better light despite the overwhelming evidence that the article is clearly WP:Spam. However, I will state for the record that the powers at be here in the WP:AfD may want to keep the article and WP:Salt it so the company or it's representatives cannot edit it. The reason for my statement is that with as many complaints that exist, this article could help someone to steer clear or uninstall this unwanted product should they come in contact with it. I did not vote to keep the article using that stance because I understand that wikipedia is not here to be a "how to" book, but rather to offer encyclopedic information on the company. Yet, good, bad or indifferent it is obvious that this article has issues that are not going to end should we allow the article to remain without some form of intervention by a diligent wikipedia administrator!--Canyouhearmenow 12:12, 10 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 for lack of comments despite two re-listings. No prejudice to another quick nomination. Secret ^account 01:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cold weapon

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet notability guideline, appears to be a neologism or translated foreign word not used in English. A bit weird because the previous AfD result was "delete"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying this is notable, but the term has a little bit of currency in English, meaning a soft redirect may be worthwhile. The Complete Taiji Dao: The Art of the Chinese Saber (2009), Contemporary Society: Social realities (1997), and Intelligence and Security Informatics (2005) all use the term as it is defined here. Previous AFD closed as delete in 2005, recreated as a redirect in 2007, before being expanded that same day. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem may be with the fact that it was retained. I have to say I have never heard of it, and military stuff in Australia, UK and NATO has been my life for thirty years. In a literal respect, it (sort of) makes sense, ie cold weapon/hot weapon, but it just has no currency in English. Perhaps it equates to an improvised weapon, or melee weapon? It definitely shouldn't be here as an article title. Perhaps as a soft redirect, as you say, but someone with a tenuous grasp of English will surely make it an article again soon. The reason I came to it was that it was used in a translated quote, and when I challenged it, the editor concerned linked to this article. It just doesn't exist. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "next to no currency" in English may be more accurate. A quick internet search gave 3 academic works from a 12 year time span in a matter of minutes; there may be more. The term white arm may have more currency. Move to wiktionary, with a soft redirect here (we can protect it if need be). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much happier with that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete By the not a dictionary policy. Even if the expression were widely used this article would still be only a definition. I don't think it would be practical to have an article about cold weapons in general since they would seem to include everything from a thrown rock to the latest sound-wave or micro-wave or whatever device now being developed. Borock (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW "white arm" or "white weapon" seems to be a translation of an Arabic term for a sword or knife. I don't think the Kuwaiti government banned the sale of baseball bats, etc. Borock (talk) 17:09, 14 June 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 07:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:16, 3 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. Secret ^account 01:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Gertz

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

Apparently written by a PR firm, the subject does not appear to have notable, reliable sources about him to sustain an article. Previously deleted (I think via prod), was recently written again without addressing the problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with AIFS article - he is mentioned in various sources, but none in-depth enough for him to warrant a WP article. He would be much better off in his company's article (where he isn't even named, at the moment). —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone - I am not a PR firm, I assure you. My last name is Liberty - and I work in the PR industry. That's why my username is LibertyPR. Gertz was recently in a newspaper article (I added the citation yesterday) and has written several publications. He was responsible for starting the first ever au pair agency in the United States to go along with his other many accomplishments in the international education field. I am happy to change my user name or provide any other credentials to assure that this is not a marketing or PR firm. --LibertyPR (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AIFS also okay. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:25, 24 June 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 07:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cites: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=40374227&privcapId=4259373 and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/us/05aupair.html?pagewanted=print&_r=1& amongst others. Just for article development: states "Bill helped AIFS launch the Au Pair in America program - the very first legal au pair agency in the United States", When? how? cite those two? If significant put comment to this effect in lead? Gregkaye (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first cite appears to be a company-provided bio and the second has only a passing mention. Can you provide any substantial coverage of this subject from independent, reliable sources? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:42. I don't see how his accomplishments are notable, and they can't be shown from significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. For example, lots of people have taken continuing education courses from Harvard University-affiliated schools. Many of the sources are random links to things he's done, such as the social media links and a brief quote in the Times article about au pair services. Quite bluntly, the guy runs a babysitting service for rich people. How the hell is that notable? We are not WikiWealthyServices or Onepercentpedia. I would go along with a redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:15, 3 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 01:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi Hill-Meyer

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, she has won 1 minor, obscure, award, and her movies aren't very groundbreaking themselves. There have been many transgender movies before them. Yet the sources are blogs, obscure magazines, and self-published sources. I see no coverage in the mainstream media to make this transgender porn star more notable than the multitude of other transgender porn stars. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, she's not JUST a porn star. She's also a writer and director (albeit a director of porn). She might or might not be notable for her work in those fields, but your rationale ignores those roles completely. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The following criteria should be brought up in a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion only in relation to subjects who are or have been involved in the pornography industry" is what is stated at WP:PORNBIO. She's been involved significantly in the pornography industry, and that's her 'main claim to fame'. My rationale includes all of the fields of pornography she's been involved in, and the fact that her books have not been covered in reliable sources. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the sources are blogs, obscure magazines, and self-published sources": Can you clarify? I admit Original Plumbing is an obscure magazine, but are you saying the Daily Xtra is a blog and The Feminist Press is a vanity press?-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Daily Xtra was some sort of blog type site, but it's actually a glossy magazine, which usually precludes it from WP:RS, and Original Plumbing doesn't seem very reliable either, as another glossy magazine with fake penises featured prominently on the cover (for transexual women-to-men who need prosthetics). Original Plumbing also has this article, in which the author did not capitalize his own name. The Feminist Press is some sort of publishing department at the "city university of New York", which seems vary vague as to whether it is in New York City or some other city like Buffalo. I like to point to examples of the content, however, when saying that something is not WP:RS. Such as this excerpt, which changes the text orientation on every page, and long run on sentences about feminism related topics. The writer also fails to capitalize the first word of the sentence, "I". Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CUNY is in New York City, as clearly stated on its Wikipedia page. But the "vagueness" of the location really shouldn't be relevant to whether a book published there is reliable. The text's orientation is not changed at all in the excerpt of King Kong Theory you linked. It's the alignment. At any rate that is a translation of a French book originally published by another publisher so I'm not sure if that's relevant here...

"Fake penises featured prominently on the cover" of Original Plumbing??? Not sure where you got that idea...-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have also failed to address the key point I've raised, that none of the sources cover the subject of the article in-depth, are not affiliated, and pass WP:RS, the feminist book contains ten pages written by the subject of this article, obviously it's an affiliated source, and doesn't cover Hill-Meyer in any other section of the book. The Daily Xtra (NSFW) is a glossy magazine, and the one article it has on Hill-Meyer only covers her pornographic aspect of her career. Original plumbing (actual porn in the link) contains an interview with Tobi Hill-Meyer about her porn life. According to WP:PORNBIO, the guidelines for notability as a pornographic actor are either

Winning multiple industry awards. The feminist porn awards are not "industry" awards, they are fringe to most of the pornography world
Starring in a revolutionary film in the pornography genre. There are a lot of other transexual porn performers before her.
Coverage in multiple, mainstream, sources. Obscure transexual magazines and feminist publishing companies do not count as mainstream media, and therefore, she doesn't seem to be very notable according to WP:PORNBIO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 123chess456 (talk • contribs)

Comment on The Feminist Press source. Tobi Hill-Meyer is mentioned in the book 7 times. She did write a ten page chapter on transgender inclusion in pornography, yet that would probably qualify as an affiliate source. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Original Plumbing article. The article was an interview with Tobi Hill-Meyer. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Feminist Press is a very reputable scholarly press housed at the CUNY Graduate Center. Definitely a reputable source. Furthermore, it seems as if there is a page for the Feminist Porn Award, thus it seems to have passed muster elsewhere as a legitimate award.--Theredproject (talk) 02:46, 16 June 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 07:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, http://www.goodforher.com/fpa_2010 and http://www.goodforher.com/doing_it_ourselves_trans_women_porn_project and significant blogs Gregkaye (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but weak delete, did not find much after reviewing 10 SERP pages on "web" setting, one mention on the "news" setting. That said, my sense is this person is important in this niche, so it is a reluctant vote on my part.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Feminist Porn Awards" are given by a single nn/unimportant retailer to promote products it sells; their man-bites-dog notability does not rise to the "well-known/significant" level required by the applicable SNGs. The cited goodforher.com sources are components of the retailer's promotional website and fail RS requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:59, 2 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails PORNBIO .–Davey2010 • (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator and views expressed above. Finnegas (talk) 23:35, 4 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Hathaway

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

Non notable; the mayor of Shreveport, is a notable position, but not the other members of the city government. The refs are insubstantial--and local. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for notability: 20-year sheriff and former president of National Sheriff's Assn. Last elected citywide commissioner of public works in Shreveport. Until 1979, Shreveport had a five-member "executive", with the mayor being the "commissioner of administration" and equal to the other four council members, called "commissioners" over public works, public safety, finance, and public utilities. The commissioners were "executives" over their departments and "legislators" on the city council as a whole, were a 3-2 vote was needed to pass measures. Many commissioners served for decades and became powerful in their cities. This kind of arrangement was born in the aftermath of the Galveston tidal wave of 1900 as an "emergency" measure. Instead, it was commonly used in the Southeast after 1901. The commission form of government was dropped largely in the South in the 1970s under "one man, one vote" decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court because there were no single-member districts; all commissioners ran at-large. The commission government is still used in a few cities, the largest being in Portland, Oregon. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those constitute substantive claims of notability under Wikipedia rules — we're not, as a rule, interested in delving too deeply into coverage of the municipal level of politics. We permit articles about mayors in cities the size of Shreveport, certainly, but a city has to have international "world city" fame, with a population in the millions, before we're interested in its individual city councillors, commissioners, or sheriffs. You're more than welcome to start your own Shreveportpedia if it's that important to you to write about people of exclusively local-to-Shreveport significance, but Wikipedia requires some evidence that he could be of interest to a national or international readership. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No strong claim of notability that would get him past WP:POLITICIAN, and the sourcing depends a bit too much on primary and unreliable sources for comfort. Only three sources here actually pass muster as valid sourcing for an article — and one of those (citation #17) contains only a single cursory mention of his name without actually being substantively about him as such, while the other two (citations #4 and 5) are missing the actual article titles and hence aren't cited properly enough to stand as valid sourcing. I don't see any other sources that cut it; even the two HighBeam citations are actually from a non-notable trade magazine. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all intense and purposes as a city commissioner Hathaway was a co-mayor. Either no mayor is notable, or all of them are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City commissioners are not "for all intense and purposes" (actually you meant intents, but I digress) co-mayors. Mayors are mayors and commissioners are commissioners, and never the twain. And the lack of substantive reliable sourcing here is still more definitive anyway. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:Politician: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. There are eight newspaper references, one national magazine, one local television report, three books, three court cases, sheriff's department website, nearly forty references in all. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:11, 21 June 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 07:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Billy Hathorn. Plenty of acceptable refs provided, subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 16:54, 12 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 note that any controversial material has now been removed. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Orfanou

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

Completely unsourced BLP containing controversial information. No sourced assertion of notability. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources in Greek entertainment publications indicating notability, and indicate the transgender information is probably accurate (although further sourcing is a good idea). Meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Editors should not be citing Google translations of sources. "Born a boy" could be a mistranslation- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be retained or deleted, but I do see a pretty significant problem in including some of the information previously included in the article on the basis of machine translated versions of foreign sources. If the information is accurate and can be reliably sourced, please feel free to readd it, but I see a significant BLP issue in including such information based on machine translated articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I revamped the article before, and would not have added the transgender information if I felt it was not valid. But to be safe, we can exclude this information, but we must keep the references; please do not delete references particularly when an article is up for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't intend to bother deleting the references, it does make the article a little bit silly to stack eight references for the one initial claim. If you'd like to use references to argue that someone meets the GNG, it's perfectly fine just to include them in the AfD discussion - it doesn't harm the strength of the keep claim for the references not to be included in the article at the time a keep vote is made. What matters is the existence of references far more than whether or not they are included in the article during an AfD - and what is assessed by a closing admin will be the quality of the arguments in the AfD discussion far more than the current state of the article. Please do not try to include potentially contentious information based on a machine translated version of an article that was originally written in a language you do not speak on this article or elsewhere though; machine translations can and frequently do result in serious ambiguities or misunderstandings of the originally cited sources, and aren't appropriate to use in a BLP for any claim that is possibly remotely controversial or contentious. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining; I somewhat agree about not using google translate, yes there can be inaccuracies, but my sense was from revamping the article, examining sources, that the overall picture of a transgendered person was correct. About piling more references into the article as opposed to merely listing them in the AfD debate -- from my experience, my sense is that many closing admins do not slog through much of the AfD debate, but rather, go straight to the article, assess the references for themselves, and then decide. When this happens, it is highly important to have the references within the article itself. Imagine the article is like a person being sent to the guillotine, and the references are like letters from well-wishers, trying to persuade the judges to spare the person; shouldn't eight references be preferred to three? We can even try an experiment; if the closing admin actually reads this comment, could he or she mention the word Betelgeuse in the closing summary?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluated this for closing, decided it wasn't ready, decided to participate instead. But Betelgeuse. ;-) --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After checking news results for her name in Greek (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), the coverage of Mina seems sufficient to presume notability. It would be good to get verification from someone who can read Greek, but sources like this and these seem legit enough. The claim of her being a trans woman also seems correct. I was editing from mobile earlier so I wasn't able to check thoroughly. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:35, 22 June 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 07:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too am dealing with automated translation, but as I dig through source after source after source, some of those appear to be significant coverage in reliable (for entertainment figures) sources providing reliable coverage. I think it's fair to exercise caution with the claims regarding the subject being trans, even I suspect the claim is almost certainly accurate based on what I've read through translation in Greek *and* French sources, and the implications of [82], and the direct transliteration of mention of her participation in a pride parade sourced at [83] saying, in part, "τρανσέξουαλ ηθοποιός Μίνα Ορφανού", my own knowledge of the Greek alphabet makes τρανσέξουαλ being directly translated as transgender as well as being a clear cognate (tau = t, rho = r, etc.), and ηθοποιός meaning actress according to my dictionary, Wiktionary and Gtranslate. Finally, I would argue against "fixing" the overcitation--someone who can read Greek may be able to do a more reliable job of re-expanding the stub from provided sources, and there's not much text here for the overcitation to distract from. By rule, sure, we'd kill 'em, but as a practical matter, I think this is a fair case for leaving them be. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The unsourced or even explained statements in categories without any corresponding information in the text should not stand. This is a clear BLP violation that needs to be removed immidiately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 1 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep, until someone who can read Greek has a look at the sources and verifies that they say, broadly, what the machine translation says. I too am quite uncomfortable on basing notability claims on machine translated sources, especially potentially libelous or extraordinary claims. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: notable actress, notable role. Article needs expansion though, the sources imply that the article should be bigger. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:23, 15 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. No prejudice against a merge in future. Jenks24 (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Essex Reporter

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

Non-notable local paper with extremely low suggested "dispersion". Sole actual ref is their own website. the panda ₯’ 09:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep subject to a possible future merge into a yet-to-be-written article about the Lynn family's newspapers in Vermont. The family's newspapers, and their significance, have been written about in The New York Times [84] and Seven Days [85]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational and encyclopedic. Coverage from The New York Times, as noted above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page, I agree of the idea of merging The Essex Reporter with the yet to be made "Lynn family's newspapers in Vermont" as you put it. I will create that page soon, once it's done i'll merge it and we can delete this one. Any suggestions on what to name it I don't know about "Lynn family's newspapers in Vermont". Thanks -Ike :)--Ike1x (talk) 15:29, 9 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 01:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P. J. Louis

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

Notability comes from independent sourcing, which this article is sorely lacking. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Just follow the links on the {{find sources}} template. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And which of those establish his notability? I see links to his website and social media and to books he wrote, but where is the independent coverage? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from his own books, and the LinkedIn type pages that are not any sort of objective commentary, just what did you find? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An author with the number of books published, passes WP:NOTABILITY. Do we need secondary sources besides what we have there on the LOC record? I don't think so.- Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. It's really not that hard to write or publish a book. What matters is having independent attention paid to such a book afterwards, whether this be for literary merit, technical significance or simple sales volume. Have you found any relevant reviews of them? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR is usually the standard. Point #4 is usually taken to mean the author has had in-depth reviews of their work. What "in-depth" entails varies wildly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a reason not to delete Gregkaye (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per my above comment - Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 3 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. Secret ^account 01:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Road, Oxford

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

PRODed this when created as a numbingly uninteresting and non-notable streed, PROD removed "Please hold off deleting. There are a few references I need to track down that will demonstrate this is more than an A-Z road!". I see no additions to make me change my mind. TheLongTone (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be some assumption that all streets in Oxford are notable. Several of those in the centre definitely are, but this isn't one of them - it's just another residential street in Botley. It's not even in the flood-prone area close to the Thames - if it were, we could find some information in the Oxford Times about residents having to be evacuated for several weeks every few years. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Riverside+Rd/@51.751597,-1.280407,3a,75y,226.51h,80.45t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAHDGYIm9dxSCH8GcJa2g9Q!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x4876c69aecfeb8a7:0x366f3c907e072074 Gregkaye (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic seems to have respectable sources. The fact that the nominator finds the topic boring is not an adequate reason to delete - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrew (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact that something exists and can be proved to do so is no reason for there to be an article about it. As you can clearly see this is an unremarkable road, one of many thousands in the UK. That is not ^I don't like it'. Get real.TheLongTone (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first pillar of wikipedia states that wikipedia has an element of a gazetteer. I believe this article fulfils this role by collating information that is otherwise difficult to find. The article passes the criterion of "Significant coverage" as demonstrated by the citations. In contradiction to what is asserted above: Parts of the street are considered at risk of flooding (See [86]). It is mentioned with respect to flooding in the Oxford Times e.g. [87], [88].Baron Ravenscar (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The gazetteer function means that Wikipedia covers settlements &c. It does not mean that every back road in the world is deserving of an article.TheLongTone (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The painfully obvious outcome here is a merge to Botley Road. With all due respect for the "keep" opinions expressed above, this residential cul-de-sac is very obviously insufficiently notable for its own article but, with all due respect for the "delete" opinions, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD we should exhaust all the reasonable alternatives before deleting, and a merge to the main road is a perfectly reasonable alternative.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

commentSounds sensible to me.TheLongTone (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like pointless busywork to me. Merger is poor because it tends to bloat and confuse topics. Our readership increasingly accesses Wikipedia through mobile devices with small screens. It is therefore best to cover topics in an atomic way, in which the material corresponds closely with the title. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and so there is no reason to minimise our page count. Andrew (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. The merge could be completed in thirty seconds, and our long-established and well-reasoned guidance about article length can be read at WP:LENGTH.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because it's in Oxford doesn't mean it's notable, There is no evidence of any notability, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because a road can be sourced doesn't mean it is notable. It's just one of millions of non notable roads. Szzuk (talk) 22:14, 5 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. Secret ^account 01:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Jefferies, Jr.

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

One-sentence article on early Utah settler created by apparent namesake of subject, has no claim to notability whatsoever, fails WP:BIO. Article has been in existence for one year, and yet despite the apparent personal interest of the article creator, it can't seem to get beyond its current one sentence length. Coretheapple (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Books search on his name and "Grantsville" turns up several results. The article claims he was important to the development of the Utah Territory, and a town founder, which seems a claim of notability. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the assertions are true, I don't see anything wrong with this stub that would require its deletion. Tentative keep. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The assertions in the article are vague and indicate, at best, that he was a small-town mayor. ("He was influential in the development of the Utah Territory,[1] where he helped found the town of Grantsville and served as one of its earliest mayors") I think that if there was substance to them this article would be longer than one sentence. I didn't leap on this article right after it was written. It has been around for a year. Coretheapple (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By no stretch of the imagination was Jefferies "important" in the early development of Utah. What did he do? Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Daniel H. Wells, and slightly later people like Jesse Knight, were important in the development of Utah. They organized industry, farming and much more. Even if Jefferies was a founder of Gransville, Grantsville has never been a city of a size to confer notability in that way. He was not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice against future recreation if someone can actually create a substantive and well-sourced version which actually makes his fundamental notability "in the development of the Utah Territory" more readily apparent than this — but as written the only substantiated or sourced claim of notability here is the fact that he served as mayor of a town too small to confer notability on its mayors under WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 1 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously the article is pretty lacking at current, but the two provided sources and numerous others easily found on Google books (per 78.26) indicate notability. The standard is not "as important as Brigham Young" but rather "important enough to be noticed by reliable sources". --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While somewhat obituaryesque, there is enough in the way of objective information [89] about his work that I'd include it as a source which, with the two in the article, reaches WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:12, 10 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. no point in keeping this OR around Secret ^account 01:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent clinical trial

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

It seems to me that this article should be deleted, because we already have article titled "clinical trial" which covers this subject. This article's title is "Independent clinical trial", but most of it is generally about clinical trials. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A10. Also, at least some of this is a copypaste from sites listed as references. --Finngall ^talk 19:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read your notes anche I want you to know that Independent clinical trials has been created as part of a European project, which is lead by Mario Negri Institute (Italy). They analized the existing for a wide range of words and concepts and found some inaccuracies. At that point they have chosen not to correct the existing pages, but to create new pages, replicated in six European languages. And the are some copycaste because the authors of this page are the same for the web sites too. DeboraSerra (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to provide you more detailed information about the background supporting the development of the new page “independent clinical trials”.It has been planned and written in the context of the FP7 project ECRAN focused on European independent clinical research (see the ECRAN website http://www.ecranproject.eu/en). The consortium of the ECRAN project which includes both institutional/academic partners and consumers’ and patients’ organizations (see the list of partners at http://www.ecranproject.eu/en/content/partners), has produced original materials (e.g. a film, two serious game, a tutorial and FAQs, see again the ECRAN website) under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License to communicate to the general public the key messages about clinical research. A strong effort was made to communicate the key messages in plain language and in the European languages (all materials are available in 6 languages, English French, Italian, German, Polish and Spanish, covering the 75% of European citizens and a selection in the 23 European languages). Among the materials, the production of wikipedia contents was a priority stated by the original protocol itself and described by a specific task of the project. The aim was provide materials simple and accurate in the same time. The ECRAN partners analyzed the existing Wikipedia pages in 6 languages (see the table) on several topics related to clinical trials and clinical research and concluded that dishomogeneity and Forse questo termine potrebbe essere sostituite da uncompleteness could represent an obstacle to properly transmit the key messages. Thus, they chose to develop a brand new page, using (they are aware) the material originally developed, whose authorship belongs to ECRAN. At the moment we are revising page, but, actually, we don’t think that it will be possible rewrite some contents. In fact the present texts are the results of a 2-year work of experts who weighted each term in order to make the information precise (in terms of methodology, statistics and/or bio-medicine) and easy to be understood. On the basis of the English version, the same contents in the other 5 languages will be uploaded on WIKI. Thus, any change in English has to be replicated, balancing again the accuracy and the user-friendship of the texts. We think that Wikipedia and the ECRAN project share the common mission to disseminate reliable multilingual information. Thus, we would like to have the opportunity to publish at least in part our material fully respecting Wikipedia rules.

Please, do you have any suggestion about the better solution (use of brackets, modality of quotation or whatever). Thanks so much Paola Mosconi, IRCCS Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, IRFMN, Italy, coordinator of the ECRAN project on behalf of the ECRAN partners — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeboraSerra (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeboraSerra, some suggestions:

Before adding more information to the English Wikipedia, I would discuss your goals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, and ask for suggestions on how to proceed. That is a discussion page for medical-related articles on the English Wikipedia in general.
Information from ECRAN should not be used on Wikipedia as if it were free; ECRAN owns the copyright to the information and restricts its use through a Creative Commons license to limit its dissemination. Even ECRAN's text too closely, with minor word changes, could constitute a copyright violation by Wikipedia, and such information should be removed from Wikipedia.
Information in a Wikipedia article will be subject to changes by any Wikipedia editors, and different language Wikipedias are run independently, so maintaining consistency beyond its initial publication isn't possible.
The different language Wikipedias are run under different rules, procedures, and style guidelines. Don't assume something said in the English Wikipedia applies to the French Wikipedia.

I also left some article-specific style suggestions at Talk:Independent clinical trial. Agyle (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Double blind test per WP:FORK. This appears to be essentially the same thing from a different viewpoint. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly oppose this. Bearian, Double blind test is a redirect to Blind experiment. Blind experiments can cover any scientific field, while clinical trials are medically-related experiments, which may or may not be blind experiments. If by "per WP:FORK" you mean create a new stand-alone article called "Double blind test" with information from this article and "Blind experiment", I think you're mixing together two very dissimilar topics. As a very basic example of a non-blind clinical trial, consider that of an artificial heart, where both doctors and patients are aware when artificial hearts are being tested. Agyle (talk) 08:51, 5 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have a proper encyclopedia article at Clinical trial. There is no content in this article which is not already covered better at Clinical trial, so there is no need for a merge or redirect. This is not a Wikipedia article at all; more like a pamphlet "to communicate to the general public the key messages about clinical research". That's an admirable goal, and I'm sure there are many places on the internet where this kind of general-public, question-and-answer-format publication would be appropriate. But Wikipedia is not one of them; this is an encyclopedia. Also, as noted above, this article certainly appears to have been copied from somewhere else - and the authors appear to think they WP:OWN the page and can control its content, which is not how things work here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:MelanieN, thanks for your comments. While User:Argyle is also correct that there are differences between the two concepts, this is little more than a how-to guide that would have to be re-written from scratch to be a real article. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 7 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, sources were not found, and the team disappeared in 2007 anyway. No rejudice against recreation if reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gimnasio Michoacana

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

No indication of notability, and page has been without references for eight years — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueCanoe (talk • contribs) 01:14, 3 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search reveals 90 hits, the majority of which are Wikipedia mirror articles about the arena or its former basketball team, and the remainder appear to be nothing more than incidental mentions. A Google News search yields zero hits. Very hard to see how this topic satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 3 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. No evidence that this article meets the reliable sources needed for GNG, willing to WP:USERFY however. Secret ^account 08:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Is

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. AllMusic is a user review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Hillsongs have a history of doing well in Official Christian & Gospel Albums Chart and the album Cornerstone got significant chart success. Jesus is/n't on a chart record that I found. Gregkaye (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Muddying the waters doesn't help. The question isn't whether Hillsong (not plural) have a history of doing well and wither or not other albums have charted, it's whether this album has charted or met some other criteria for inclusion. As NALBUMS states, "that an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article". Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and Improve~~ - The article isn't perfect but just needs better sourcing. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Improve? How? It's not a notable album! Please provide the sources that support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete - I actually can't find any evidence to say this album's notable at all!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue improvement. I would argue to merge into the artists' discography article, but Hillsong is too prolific per the WP:TOOLONG clause at NALBUMS. Allmusic is a solid reliable source and allmusic used to be named as one of two preeminent websites for the criteria on music notability. Looked like a cleanup template issue for requiring more sources so I added them. Having Matt Redman and Chris Tomlin credited as contributing to the album increases its notability [90]. It was hard to wade through all of the material since I got over 1 million hits on searching for sources. Royal broil 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Royalbroil: Did you check the AllMusic entry for this album? It's nothing but a track listing an a pair of user ratings. This does not meet notability. A staff review must review the album and provide a rating and that has not been done. There's nothing to salvage here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent significant coverage. WWGB (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep and merge Jesus Is: Remix into this article. The album was reviewed by Cross Rhythms, and Tony Cummings included a brief discussion of the album in another Cross Rhythms article. There may very well be other sources out there as well.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Multiple sources are needed to support notability. Only one present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per policy, sources need not be present in the article, they need only exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hope you're not implying that I stated that they needed to be in the article. I merely stated that, at the time, only one reference that met RS was in existence, or at least that I was aware of. With the Sound Scan addition below, it might be enough now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It charted on the Nielsen SoundScan for Top Praise & Worship - see page 20. This is what I mean by there may be other sources - I, and apparently other, haven't done an in-depth search.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, to recap, there is one review, but the album charted, so it's somewhat notable. I think enough so for an article.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per charting info supplied by 3family6, and other RS describing the album.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the album has charted as per the sources provided by 3family6 and as the other independent references provided.Dan arndt (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the chart, it did not make the top ten that week in the limited category "Praise & Worship" (Each chart reflects Christian and general market combined album sales for the week ending August 27, 2006.), it was #20. Insufficient coverage for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment using the principle of WP:NSONGS, "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.", it doesn't require the album to have reached the top ten.Dan arndt (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria. #1 on the charts is a lot more suggestive than #20. --Bejnar (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that the album charted is a reflection that it had significant sales in that category. #20 is better than never have entered the charts at all. That together with the independent verifiable reviews is enough to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If sales numbers were presented, it would be a different discussion. We should only be considering major charts. I say that for all albums, not only this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another RS review had been added, as the remix version content is now in this article, a review of that material by Jesus Freak Hideout lends further weight to overall article's notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The same problems remain. --Bejnar (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will run a search again for this album - I can't remember if I did a thorough search, as I might have stopped when I found the charting info. My opinion is that any national chart numbers are sufficient for notability (this is Nielsen SoundScan, not merely the magazine's, chart).--¿3family6 _contribs 22:44, 14 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shout God's Fame

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

Contested PROD. Clearly does not meet WP:NALBUMS as the AllMusic link is nothing more than a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non-notable album fails WP:NALBUMS. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewed by Cross Rhythms, briefly mentioned in Christian Today, and cited in a footnote on page 204 of Ecclesial Identification beyond Late Modern Individualism?: A Case Study of Life Strategies in Growing Late Modern Churches. Tony Cummings in 2006 discussed the album in a Cross Rhythms article, and noted that the album was important in launching Natasha Bedingfield's career, as he mentions "four top rate worship songs 'Shout Your Fame', 'You Are My Rock', 'Centre Of My Life' and 'I Will Go' co-written by a singer about to be catapulted to pop stardom, Natasha Bedingfield, who was a member of the fellowship for six years." This comment was later noted by a writer on Beliefnet.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A footnote is not significant coverage. The Cross Rhythms review is good, but the rest are not sufficient. Almost enough for GNG though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree about the footnote, I just wanted to bring forward everything that I've found.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ah-Ha! I found another discussion, this one in CCM Magazine - see page 16 (page 10 in the Adobe navigation bar). Also a very brief note of Bedingfield's writing for the album on page 39 (navbar page 30) of a later issue.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The CCM mention is similarly brief and without author. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which mention?--¿3family6 _contribs 03:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first discussion is part of the "Insider" column by Christa Farris, see page 9.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah. There were two. The "Worship’s Calling!" piece was the piece without an author and was IMO a brief mention. I was reading the sources in the diff, not the discussion view and only saw one. The second, the Daniel & Natasha Bedingfield review, is only a mention and doesn't really count. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The first source does have an author, Christa Farris. If you scroll to page 9 (page 5 in the PDF page list), you'll see her name under the column title. Throughout the column there are pieces without a byline, so I would assume that they were penned by Farris, unless otherwise stated. And I wouldn't consider three paragraphs a brief mention.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to note that with the sources I found, this article could easily be brought up to "start" class - I could create a brief background section, brief stylistic section, a critical reception section, and a brief legacy and influence section.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brought up to start class? They don't even make it past WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "they?" The sources? They need to be reliable, not notable. There are two sources by different publications. The first, Cross Rhythms, you already accepted as notable. The second, CCM Magazine, has a write-up of equal length about the album. You objected to this source as unattributed, so I looked through the column, and found that the entire column is written by Christa Farris, though some of the segments in it have other authors. You also objected that the coverage in that write-up is not significant. But it is of about the same length as the Cross Rhythms source, which you already accepted. In addition to these to sources, there is another Cross Rhythms article which devotes at least a paragraph to the album.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources need to be reliable. The sources need to show 1) significant coverage 2)from reliable 3) sources that are 4) independent of the subject. Even in those cases, it only presumed to confer notability if those are present. What's missing is significant coverage in multiple sources. I see only brief coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the CCM Mag coverage not significant?--¿3family6 _contribs 03:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In http://ht.salemweb.net/ccm/ccmmagazine/pdf/200406.pdf Four paragraphs. Second focuses on the church. The other three as unremarkable and don't really expound on the album. http://ht.salemweb.net/ccm/ccmmagazine/pdf/200705.pdf discusses Daniel & Natasha Bedingfield not the album. It does mention the album though. How exactly is the coverage significant? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is a very brief mention. If you don't think the first mention is significant, fine. I just disagree.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a grey area. If the closing admin wants to confirm, that would be a 3rd opinion. But it's still just one source and we need sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:45, 3 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 3family6 information/sources above: sufficient to establish notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you still don't know what does and does not constitute a RS and certainly not enough to establish notability, particularly when it comes to the subject of Hillsong recordings at any rate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whilst not a big contemporary gospel music fan (actually I don't like it at all) I would have to disagree with Walter Görlitz's preceding comments. I think that the reviews provided are sufficient enough to establish notability.Dan arndt (talk) 13:38, 4 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hills Praise

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

Contested PROD. Album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per the review given in the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Multiple reviews are required. AllMusic is a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed that it needs more than one significant mention. Hence my hesitancy to give it a full "keep" vote. But I'm not convinced that there is nothing else written about this album. I haven't done a site search of all the sources on WP:CCM/S, and there could be offline references.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Sorry, I forgot about this AfD, because there are so many HIllsong related ones. I did a more thorough search, and couldn't find anything, so I'm amending my vote to delete unless Shaidar cuebiyar magically appears with ARIA chart or certification info, as they have done on some other of these AfDs.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the review found by User:Shaidar cuebiyar. I suspect that there are more print reviews that have not been found. Walter Görlitz does not think that a one paragraph review is enough for notability. I think that this review, in combination with the review already in the article, is enough for notability.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this archive of articles at CCM usable, it has a review and rating of Hills Praise from April 1998. If its usable, the other Hillsong-related AfDs could be affected.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like a valid set of reviews so it could be used, but no, it won't make a difference. A short review doesn't help to meet notability. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album with no evidence of notability .–Davey2010 • (talk) 15:44, 1 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 3family6, has multiple reviews by independent sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although not a fan of contemporary gospel music, I agree with 3family6 and Shaidar Cuebiyar's comments that there are sufficient sources to establish the album's notability.Dan arndt (talk) 14:29, 7 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 Hinton,_Alberta#Infrastructure. If there is any material that could be used, it can be transferred over Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parks West Mall

AfDs for this article:

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

NN 16-store, 138,000 square ft., 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) – which this is clearly below. Topic fails GNG; as the coverage is local (see wp:AUD) and/or non-substantial. Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only potentially significant reference I see is the citation in the Haber book. Could somebody who has access to that please summarize what the book says about the mall? If this was some important test case, I would say it infers notability. If it's just some passing mention of a nothing-special contract dispute, not so much. Until we know what the book actually says, it's impossible to evaluate whether, and how much, it contributes to meeting WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, in the first instance the case itself is not a secondary source, so it does not count towards notability. One would need substantial secondary source coverage.

And then, that would merely go to whether the case or the principle of the case was notable -- not whether one of the named litigants in the case is notable. There's no evidence of that either.

Finally, the case is about principles of contract law as applied to certain facts. Specifically (primarily): a) whether there was a binding contract between Mark's Work Wearhouse which was looking at granting a franchise to Messrs. Jennett and Slavik, once accepted by Parks West Mall; b) whether there was a basis for the trial judge to find, from the conduct of Jennett and Slavik, that they knew that the mall had accepted their offer; c) whether Marks induced Jennett and Slavik to breach the contract; d) whether Marks, if it did induce a breach of contract, was justified in doing so; and e) whether Marks owed Jennett and Slavik a duty of care in giving advice to them both as to opening a store and as to their position under the contract. The case is not even primarily about the mall, but about a franchisor and franchisees fighting about a possible lease at the mall.

And, as anyone who has studied caselaw knows, cases in the casebook method are used to demonstrate legal principles, and are included in law books because the opinions written in deciding them reflect principles of law; not because the cases impart notable information about the parties. Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. I fully agree with Epeefleche's comments; mere inclusion of a court opinion in a law textbook does not, in and of itself, support the notability of the parties to the underlying legal action. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See comment here. Epeefleche (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N, or LImited Merge to Hinton,_Alberta#Infrastructure per PWilkinson. My attempts to find reliable sources only turned up the usual assortment of facebook, twitter, yelp, our own article, and random blogs and directories. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If merge, a short mention is all it needs, but I'm not even sure that's justified. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – The access to newspaper sources from the late 80s and early 90s is difficult. I did find an article in the Edmonton Journal which is entirely about the mall and its construction, which in my view constitutes significant coverage, and it allowed me to expand the article. "Weak" because it is only the one source so far. Others I've found are just passing mentions in articles about events or crimes at the mall. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 1 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hinton, Alberta. While the available sources seem to fall some way short of justifying a standalone article, User:Paul Erik seems to have found enough local coverage to justify two or three sourced sentences there. PWilkinson (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have a problem with a redirect (or a delete), but for the above reasons don't support a merge. Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a mall. An ordinary one. It fails notability in every way. The argument that one article was written about its construction is overreaching, that certainly does not constitute significant coverage.Jacona (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to Hinton, Alberta. As has been pointed out, getting online access to media sources from this mall's heyday can be difficult. Still, until such sources are presented I think a redirect, preserving the article's history, is the best way to go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Sixteen stores, that's all. Looks like the local news controversy was from local store owners objecting to the advantage that big competitors sometimes enjoy in favor over them. Not untypical. (The comments about the significance in case law are correct. Mention per se is mere mention. The case, hopefully, would have the same result in a mega-mall case or strip-mall case.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:06, 14 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Songs for Communion

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of independent significant coverage. WWGB (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed in at least three independent sources - Christianity Today, Cross Rhythms (which is cited in the article!), and this book (wish I could give the page number instead of the search url, but Google Books is very annoying now in that it often doesn't display page numbers).--¿3family6 _contribs 15:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 3family6's good research.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book page number is likely 170 (you'll see that in the URL, but it may not be precise), that and the Christianity Today article seem to meet GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:59, 1 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient independent verifiable sources now provided.Dan arndt (talk) 13:44, 4 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.