Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 March	23 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete this article. A merge does not have strong support either, and the keep arguments are more convincing. However, a dedicated discussion may prove fruitful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1921–22 famine in Tatarstan[edit]

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

Contested prod. Violates WP:COATRACK, specifically WP:UNDUE as it is a content fork of Russian famine of 1921. 1921–22 famine in Tatarstan relies on a single source and has been tagged so since 2010. Gsearch only turns up wikipedia mirrors while searches in Gbooks and Gscholar turned up nothing specifically to a famine in Tatarstan during this time period. 174.3.125.23 (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the nom; no opinion. ₆an⁶sh₆ 07:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem with this article whatsoever. It does not meet the terms of WP:UNDUE. It is not biased. It provides information not in the main article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 'Russian famine of 1921'. Tatarstan appears to be inside Russia or in its time Soviet Russia. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or just redirect). Tartarstan is and long has been part of Russia: at the time in question of the Russian Federated SSR. This article adds nothing to the wider subject. If it can be substantially expanded providing information on events in this Autoomnous SSR, that the article could be retained, but not until then. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep This page discusses the Stalin engineered famine/genocide of Volga Tatars. This deserves its own page.Nestwiki (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep and discuss a merge. Does not appear UNDUE at all -- Y not? 21:28, 18 March 2014 (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 01:06, 23 March 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 March 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This page raises issues not discussed in main article. It raises issue of Holodomor of Tatar people. I don't see any problem with this page. Delljvc (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact you are right, this is akin to the way the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 is being used by nationalists to promote their cause. You don't see any problems with attribution of the 1921-22 famine entirely to "war communism" rather than the contributing factors of climate and civil war? Okay, if you say so. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Aldrich[edit]

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

This article has been used to harass the subject, it is also subject to edits that are hard to verify due to lack of sources. Four are currently cited: one is a profile in a trade magazine, one appears to be a namecheck, the other two appear to be primary sources (and perhaps not independent). They are not linked inline so the text itself, which is - ahem -stylistically problematic - is hard to verify. Most of the article is by WP:SPAs. Overall, this is causing a lot of trouble for a poorly written article, and I thik we can do without it. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain how it is being used to "harass the subject"? I can find no evidence of this on the talk page or in past AfD discussions. Silver seren^C 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Clark_Aldrich. I'm not sure harass is the right word. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, the claim is completely untrue then. Good to know. So, what was the point of this AfD again? Silver seren^C 07:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has value in bringing together the published works of Aldrich and updating the profile and career. This is useful to those who are involved or are developing research and products in this niche area of 'simulations' Paulpen (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best method to show that Mr. Aldrich is notable in the field of education simulations is to find more reliable sources, such as news articles, books, journals articles, ect., that discuss him. Like i've been doing. Silver seren^C 07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Procedural close NPASR~~ The current article bears no resemblance to the nomination argument. There is nothing to discuss here. Unscintillating (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep since the proposal to allow the nominator to reopen the discussion has received no support, and the nomination's concerns appear to have been remedied. Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article seems sound; topic is notable. --do ncr am 11:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, I think i've done all I can with the article for now. I hope it appropriately shows the notability of the subject now. Have a nice day. Silver seren^C 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- GreenC 15:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an additional Keep-sentiment !vote that was left on the talk page. -- GreenC 15:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zendex Corporation[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation. I could find no coverage in a search. The article makes no claim of notability for the company and consists mostly of a chatty history about its founding. Unreferenced since 2009. MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources either. Corporations are not inherently notable. ChromaNebula (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long-unreferenced, nothing new seems to be happening to make it worthy of keeping. I'm generally inclined to give these some time, but it's had time since 2009. BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a small and run of the mill tool company. Much of the article is probably a copyvio of the obituary of its founder, Robert Sealy Livermore, but I can't be certain. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as a keep, although a merge discussion may prove fruitful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appian Technology[edit]

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

Non-notable company. I could not find any significant coverage, and the company may be out of business. Bloomberg Businessweek lists it but shows no recent activity; the phone number they list has been disconnected, and I couldn't find a website for the company. MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could find the company in two separate Indian newspapers (the Times of India and the Economic Times) and plenty of other sources. Why delete it? ChromaNebula (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what those Indian references said? I did notice that Google suggested there was a company profile at The Times of India, but the link was dead. In any case, "company profiles" are usually just reprints of company-supplied information--MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ZyMOS (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On further searching, I found that the company (originally named ZyMOS) went bankrupt in 1994 and that most of its assets were acquired by Cirrus Logic.[1] So a merge/redirect to Cirrus Logic is a possibility. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gang_bang_pornography#Other_gangbang_records . Redirect !votes had stronger arguments, and they are WP:CHEAP. Nothing near a consensus for an actual article to be kept. Information to be merged can be done through history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Givens[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards or nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Just kayfabe based on press releases. A BLP fiasco. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement by IP without prior edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off...thanks, I needed that image in my head O.o. I'm in pain just thinking about this woman. Before I vote, is there any criteria for record holders? Does being a world record holder impact notability? Certainly 101 is quite a feat, would that have any bearing on this? Personally, I would forget the whole porn bio criteria and consider that aspect rather than debate her notability as a porn star. Bali88 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: my vote is Merge to gang bang pornography. That's a pretty impressive record. I think it is worth a mention.

Delete. Without non-trivial interest from reliable sources, this performer fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Any claims this record is a unique contribution to porn or an otherwise notable achievement need RS coverage to back them up. Otherwise this is just hype. I am only finding press releases in a search for reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think uncertified claims of world records count for notability purposes. I presume this wasn't in the Guinness book of records? BLPs must be sourced properly so this is an autofail Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this is a pretty impressive record. I tried to look up this record and it has lots of mentions, but its all on a bunch of porn sites, which I don't particularly want to look at. I don't know which sites are considered reliable or whatever, but I don't think it's unverified, it appears to be legit as it has been described widely online. And I mean...if someone wants to verify it, it's on video. This is not something that I think I want to go to the trouble of verifying, but if someone is in doubt, the video is out there. -_- Bali88 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all records are notable. If no-one has written about it in an independent reliable source we can be sure that the record is not notable and hosting an article based on our own viewing of a film is very much original research.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to rise to the level of notability required by the gudelines for pornographic actor biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gang_bang_pornography#Other_gangbang_records - After doing some searching & recently editing the article in question here, it appears to me that the best course of action at this time would be to redirect this subject's name to the primary thing that she is currently noted for, which is participating in a gangbang record. I do not concede that the subject's article currently has no "reliable sourcing" at all, and I am personally not a fan of this subject's work.

I could see how one could make an argument that this subject here has "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" or has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" though. Guy1890 (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent idea. Bali88 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, Whats going on here? Reliable Sources per WP:PORN, XbiZ, AINews.com, AVN, AVN, AVN, and AVN.

With multiple reliable sources this actress pass WP:GNG the article has WP:RS and is a keep. Valoem ^talk 22:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- You can't call a self-penned letter and regurgitated press releases reliable sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No I am looking at this: AVN Givens, XBiZ Givens, and this google books reference. What I am seeing per WP:GNG and WP:RS is significant coverage from reliable sources in this genre according to the ProjectPage's requirements. Google books is considered the most reliable. This actress has had significant coverage. Every genre has different sources considered reliable. Video games has Kotaku, Wired, Gamespot, and others. Poker has PokerNews, Cardplayer, and Bluff Magazine. Porn has AVN and AIN so I am making this judgment from the precedence set on porn RS. To require CNN, NYT, Forbes, or major publications does not appear to be a requirement for determining notability in this genre. Valoem ^talk 00:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So these are not what you relied on earlier? No? Also, I'm afraid that you need to specify the sources and not just link to search pages. I looked at some random articles from your search and they were all regurgitated press releases. Both AVN and Xbiz are notorious for reprinting press releases so you need to analyze the actual reference to determine if its independent. The company press byline and contact to the webmaster is a classic giveaway that its not independent. Can you list any sources you think are NOT regurgitated press releases? The book you linked doesn't show the actual reference to Givens so for all we know its a cast listing. You cannot rely on any of those things without being able to properly examine them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Guy1890 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please can the closing admin not potential canvassing [2]. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to the canvassing, it was an outreach for the opinions from members of the porn project. I was confused specifically about this which states stated Xbiz is a RS with no further information. I tried to leave neutral messages for unbiased opinions, my concern at the time, was due to the lack of response from members of the wikiproject. I have no editorial history with any of the editors and found all of them here (went down the list). Valoem ^talk 13:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to gang bang pornography. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Comment, I found some more sources that may establish more notability:[reply]

XBiz
Adult AFI
AVN Article
Xbiz Reliable sources if not press release per WikiProject Porn RS.

Sources with reliable questionable:

Marks Friggins Victoria Givens appearance on Howard Stern
AVN article Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 - no byline and its about an interview. The actual interview is a primary source and does not count for this reason. No comment on whether the source of the interview is notable anyway. Its a commercial site of some description.

2 - Not a RSas far as I can see. No named reporters, no evidence of fact checking etc.

3 - Obviously not a RS. Looks like a press release, no byline.

4 - Has a byline, mostly quotes which count as primary sources. Once you discount them there isn't enough for this to be a substantial secondary source.

5 - Where is the content on Givens? Its an unreliable schedule of the Stern show. Not even close.

6 - Looks like a press release.

So in short. No. None of this is helping and in fact you are strengthening the delete side by showing how weak the sourcing is. I mean, she claims to have set a world record but you can't find any after the event reporting? Seriously? Everything you have found looks like promoting the event not regular reporting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Grilled Cheese Truck[edit]

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

Apparently notable , tho some of the sources , such as a local business journal, local newspapers, and the press releases reprinted in trade journals are very questionable, but article is too promotional to stand. I tried rewriting it, but it would have required complete rewriting from scratch. Among the unsourced promotional statements are "placing them along some of the best comfort foods and sandwiches in the country." , "numerous accolades" "countless television appearances" "well on their way to becoming the first publicly traded food truck. "

Among the promotional writing devices are a description of why the founder happened to conceive of the company and the use of the proprietor's first name by itself through the article, which is appropriate only for popular entertainers, a list of TV shows where they appeared, and a focus on twitter (etc) rank. (These devices are characteristic of paid editing, tho that's not proof this is--it could merely have been naïvely influenced by the style of the thousands of such articles in WP.)

Accepted at AfC; reviewed by the AfC elimination drive, which considered the acceptance correct. I've commented there. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have began to perform some copy edits to address promotional tone in the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in numerous local newspapers, and on a TV show ChromaNebula (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:AUD per national coverage in QSR Magazine and regional coverage in the Orange County Register: [3], [4]. I have performed some copy editing to address promotional tone, and additional edits from others to better the article are most welcome. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:GNG but it is a very good thing DGG brought this up for deletion, as it has vastly improved. Still some room. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 00:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm still new to wikipedia, but I had it in my head that notability was basically what we were supposed to consider in AFD discussions. Am I wrong? What is the reason for the AFD nomination? Bali88 (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bali88:, thanks for your input! An AfD discussion is to determine whether an article is worthy of being kept. One of the most common arguments to keep is regarding notability, but sometimes articles on notable topics are deleted because of extremely poor writing, or because they are blatantly promotional, and there isn't any hope of fixing it without starting completely over. Best case scenario is when an article improved, and then kept. Take a look at the article's shape at the time DGG nominated it, then compare to its current state. Hope that helps. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It easily meets the standards for inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Sexx[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content -- aside from disputed birthdate/place claims, no biographical content whatsoever. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP without prior edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. My own searches only yielded press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsourced BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please can the closing admin not potential canvassing [5]. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Lamour[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Claimed TV appearances are unsourced and uniformly involve erotic programming rather than mainstream content. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement by IP without prior edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The current sources have minimal biographic content. Don't think anything better exists.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete BLPs must meet GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was tempted to consider a keep vote from the coverage I found in searches, but a closer look at these sources indicate they are regurgitated press releases. Fails PORNBIO without awards or being featured in real mainstream media. Fails GNG without substantial RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spartaz. Admirably concise and precise. David in DC (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Clearly, fails all relevant notability guidelines. Finnegas (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the overwhelmingly stacked votes against this article, however reliable sources in WP:PORN is vastly different from restaurants and businesses. Per the ProjectPage's requirements AVN and AIN are WP:RS a search brought 77 hits on AVN] and 1 hit on AIN, and slight coverage from Brazzers. Valoem ^talk 01:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even WP:PORNPROJECT cautions, "AVN also does not indicate when an article is a press release." The AVN and XBiz articles I found are reprinted press releases or trivial mentions. The media contact at the end is usually the tell on a press release. Brazzers is not a reliable source. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please can the closing admin not potential canvassing [6]. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to the canvassing, it was an outreach for the opinions from members of the porn project. I was confused specifically about this which states stated Xbiz is a RS with no further information. I tried to leave neutral messages for unbiased opinions, my concern at the time, was due to the lack of response from members of the wikiproject. I have no editorial history with any of the editors and found all of them here (went down the list). Valoem ^talk 13:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Family values. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional family values[edit]

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

I'm not taking this to AfD because I think it should be deleted; on the contrary, I have no opinion. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tagged it for speedy deletion, but User:Bearian contested, and suggested a PROD or AfD. I took the liberty of making the nomination, while noting that I am a neutral third party regarding the page's deletion. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, it's a very recent creation by banned user Benjeboi, via his just-identified Sportfan5000 sock, intended as a thumb-on-the scales way to associate the widely used phrase with a relatively narrow political segment. Second, it's basically a content fork of Family values; there's nothing suggesting the more careful and more accurate treatment of the phrase in that article is inadequate. Third, it's far too open-ended, and is likely to end up a lengthy-to-the-point of being useless laundry list -- its four entries already include a related phrase, a type of political rhetoric, a political movement, and a political philosophy -- it's already a catch-all for more-and-less associated concepts, not the alternative meanings/referents a DAB page should be used to identify. 19:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)
- Agreed. The relevant policy is WP:DABCONCEPT. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Family values. They seem to be the same thing. WP should have an article on the topic and/or expression, even if its meaning is somewhat vague and constantly shifting. BTW many people have complimented President and Mrs. Obama on their family values without implying that they are somehow right-wing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out Obama family values. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think it could be included. I just don't want the precedent of speedy-deleting a possibly good article merely because it was created by a banned user. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - what is there to merge? It's a WP:DAB that falls very very far afoul of WP:NPOV. ansh666 05:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what I was thinking; redirect to Family values would work better. I'm pretty sure the "possible meanings" are mostly included in there already. ansh666 16:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in the sense of referencing these possible meanings in Family values and redirecting the title there. bd2412 T 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Mohammed Samara[edit]

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

Based on the username of the creator, I suspect that the page has been written by the subject. The "Research interests" section is copied from their LinkedIn profile. Discounting the copyright and COI concerns, the article's only substantial text is a list of papers, which does not, in itself, demonstrate notability under the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Arguably a candidate for CSD G12, but that would depend on whether or not the rest of the text could be considered salvageable. SuperMario Man ( talk ) 18:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete H-index of 3. [7] Fails WP:PROF and just about every other notability criterion. Jinkinson talk to me 20:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for a professor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography, and supposed indication of notability (having articles published in journals) doesn't fly. However, we need to avoid biting the article's creator... ChromaNebula (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WoS shows 8 total citations (h-index 1). Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for failing to meet the GNG.Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 06:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn apparently I don't understand restaurant notability. StarM 04:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Fyne Restaurants[edit]

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

This is a chain of restaurants for which there is no evidence of notability. Beyond brief mentions of their locations' opening and closings, the only coverage I find is their payment issues, which isn't enough to establish notability. StarM 16:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. StarM 16:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to:

The Scotsman
BBC News
Herald Scotland
Huffington Post
The Mirror
The Guardian
Metro
The Independent
London Evening Standard
Information and Communication Technologies in Rural Society. pp. 74-76.
Local heroes: how Loch Fyne Oysters embraced employee ownership and business success. 192 pages.
Caterer and Hotelkeeper

Again, more sources exist in addition to those posted above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A restaurant brand with 42 outlets is sufficietnly in the public face for an article to be useful. A category for them would not be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, as demonstrated in sources posted by Northamerica, thanks. --do ncr am 01:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are myriad opinions here such as merging to friendship, creating a disambiguation page, and retaining the article as a stand-alone article. Furthermore, in a comment below the initial (stricken) withdrawal, the nominator again withdrew on 25 March 2014 (UTC), and no other delete !votes are present. Further discussion regarding this article can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best friends forever[edit]

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

Article has no aim. it simultaneously acts as a dictionary entry and disambiguation page, but also attempts weakly to describe adolescent and post-adolescent friendships.

If we're trying to get into the nuts and bolts of what best friends are, culturally-speaking, or how best friendships impact human development, the people who should comment on that are the authorities in the field of culture, anthropology, human behavior, child development, etc., but I also think such content makes more sense in an article on "best friendships" rather than in an article about the cutesy modern expression "Best friends forever". So, I'm of the opinion that the article can be deleted, or turned into a redirect to Friendship, or merged into Friendship if there's enough content here to warrant inclusion. In its present state, the article is a wordier version of this Wiktionary entry, and has not improved much since 2010. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I withdraw the AfD. Sorry everybody. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I think I screwed up by creating the AfD, I'll wait for it to resolve and then renovate future approaches to this sort of issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes a variety of actions which may be taken by ordinary editing such as a title change (move) or merger. Such action is preferred per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. A deletion discussion is not appropriate as this is not the article's talk page and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, my nomination isn't sudden or anything. The article PRODed by another user in 2011. A few users have mocked it on the talk page for being poorly written, and user Gusworld questioned the sources that attempt to bolster the subject as presented in the article. If there is a point to the article, I don't see what it is, or what it has attempted to be since 2010. I first raised my confusion on the talk page in January, with no objections or attempts to clarify. Not sure what special treatment is suggested here. It's an article about a common phrase that doesn't impart the significance of the phrase. And it's not like sociologists treat "best friends forever" as an actual, and distinctive type of friendship. Merging the scraps of this article somewhere else might be a way to go, but seriously, what useful portion could be merged? To exist, the article would have to be fundamentally rewritten and refocused on the significance of BFF in popular culture or something. No? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there is work to be done here and I have started doing it. But the question at AFD is whether we need to use the delete function. The nomination seems to acknowledge that this should not be a red link and that there are more constructive alternatives. So, if we're not going to use the delete function, why have a deletion discussion? Andrew (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|A fair point. I've had a reality check recently with regards to my AfD nominations. I'm open-minded about the fate of the article, and AfD seemed at the time the best place to discuss all the options. I withdraw my AfD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Friendship It doesn't need a separate article. Anything useful here can be included in the article Friendship, which would help to make it more complete. --Stfg (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the suggestion made below to change the current page to a disambiguation page (having merged any content into the Friendship article). --Stfg (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change into disambiguation page. The hat note on the current pages tells us that there are several notable things (mainly TV episodes) with this title. A brief definition of the expression itself could be at the top of the page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of Google news and Google book search results for the phrase, so it is used a lot. Not sure if it needs its own article, separate than Friendship. Dream Focus 01:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Variety of actions - the page itself should be a disambiguation page. "BFF" is certainly notable as a word, as the usage can caught on remarkably in the past 20 years. If it isn't already, should be in the dictionary, but I'm not convinced that it should have its own encyclopedia page. I think an argument could be made that BFF could have a mention on another page, such as friendship. The concept of BFF, imo, isn't anything distinguishable from other types of friendship. If there was some new type of friendship that it described, I would argue for its inclusion, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that. I looked at the sources and it looks like they indeed use the phrase, but aren't really about the phrase to describe the concept of bff as opposed to other type of friendship. So my vote is turn this page into disambig. and merge. Bali88 (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do, in fact, drew a clear distinction between the different levels of friendship. For example, Best Friends Forever explicitly spells out a hierarchy of casual friends, good friends and best friends. Academic studies such as Best friends forever?: High school best friendships and the transition to college are specifically concerned with this level of close friendship too. As multiple books have been written about this topic, it passes WP:GNG easily. Andrew (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page. Definitions are at best friend forever. There there is Best Friends Forever (South Park), Best Friends Forever (TV series), and Best Friends Forever (soap opera) or Best Friends Forever?. Then there is also currently a redirect at Best Friend Forever to Paris Hilton's My New BFF, which seems a questionable redirect at best. Then there is also episode 12 of season 1 in List of R. L. Stine's The Haunting Hour episodes, a track from Love is You (EP) by Cherry Belle, and Best Friends Forever, an Internet album by Liz Enthusiasm, 2009 comedy film BFF: Best Friends Forever, simulation game High School Dreams: Best Friends Forever, upcoming Nepali film BFF: Best Friends Forever (2014 film), a song Best Friends Forever (Tweenies song), and any number of partial title matches which might be ambiguous enough to merit a mention such as Super Best Friends Forever. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dab page ..older ≠ wiser demonstrates the many uses that need disambiguation. However what to do with the content.. if someone wants to recreate in best friends forever (phrase), and can demonstrate sources about the phrase and its impact on society (beyond examples of use and definition) that would be OK. -- GreenC 04:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added to the article. The phrase has been around at least since 1987 and has had an impact on society, likely in an amount sufficient to be described in a Wikipedia article given enough time. Andrew, Dream Focus, Green Cardamom, please consider, reconsider. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the phrase exists and that it has had an impact on society. I do, however question the article's focus. If we're talking about the phrase, then let's talk about the phrase and the impact on the phrase in popular culture. But if we're trying to say that there is a real anthropological thing called "best friends forever"--that the Mayans invented it or whatever--and it's somehow different and closer than the more common concept of "best friends", that's gonna be a weird thing to try to sell. I'm going to re-post this comment on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, agreed. Bali88 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Friendship; then, create a DAB at Best Friends Forever (which currently redirects here) for the songs/TV shows/etc. and redirect this there. I don't think this warrants its own article, per WP:NOTDICT. ansh666 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and DAB I think merging the content into a small section of Friendship and creating a DAB page for the phrase, including a link to the Friendship section and for all those other uses that older ≠ wiser listed would make it accessible and meaningful to the most readers. - Gorthian (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a notable phrase. Even though some of the content would perhaps go better in Friendship, the phrase itself and its uses, could be expanded in this article, as ~~the second paragraph~~ has begun to do. BethNaught (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By that I mean the paragraph beginning "The term BFF as in Best friends forever has been used". The analysis of childhood friendships added by User:Wallfull is not what I believe is appropriate. BethNaught (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase is certainly notable enough to have a wikipedia article, but i question how well we can find sources for this. People use the phrase widely, but how often do you find reliable sources discussing the use of the phrase and its impact on culture? I question if we can really do a BFF (phrase) without it being largely original research :-/ Bali88 (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep where this topic is notable and has plenty of sources which are reliable. It is a common phrase used, especially nowadays and many young readers will be searching for this term. A lot of work has been done to improve the page, too. Tinton5 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahar Hirsh[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has played in a match in the Toto Cup Ligat Al, a competition only open to teams playing in the Israeli Premier League. As he has played a competitive game between two teams both from a fully-professional league - in other words a fully-professional cup competition - I am happy to say he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Article, however, needs improving. Giant Snowman 16:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2 Roleplay[edit]

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

Non-notable game mod. No reliable sources to be found. Only forum chatter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any reliable sources. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete per nom and Samwalton9, can't find RS's. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Young-hyun[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer, other claims (even if notable) are usourced. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He has competed four times for K-1, including two wins. Shaolin Punk (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a criteria for notability as a kickboxer.Mdtemp (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:KICK. Can it can be shown he's notable for ssireum? Mdtemp (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly not notable as a kickboxer. I have been searching for a list of national champions in ssireum, but I have not yet found one. The list at Ssireum is for the Cheonhajangsa Ssireum Championship, not the national championship. (I suspect that was the only list the author could find since it's the list I found in my search). Perhaps someone who knows Korean can find a list to show his notability in ssireum. Papaursa (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable kickboxer, which is focus of article. Also fails GNG. No sourcing to show notability in ssireum and burden of proof is on those claiming notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sign of notability based on kickboxing records. Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 06:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think he's notable as a kickboxer, would you please explain what part of WP:KICK he meets? Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has 2 wins as a kickboxer and none as an MMA fighter. Since no evidence has been given he's a notable ssireum fighter, I'm voting to delete this article. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments are clearly weighted towards deletion. I suspect, however, that interest from someone with access to Japanese sources and the ability to use them could have changed the outcome of this discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Kanno[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. The 2 sources provided prove that he gets coverage from his notable wife. WP:NOTINHERITED. I only find coverage for a much more famous namesake eg http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2066367_2066369_2066313,00.html LibStar (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is obscure, true, and hard to find in Japanese: his name appears to be 菅野衣川 (read Kanno Isen according to ref below, but 猛 (Takeshi) is also given as his 'real name'), but there are references to him as the wife of Gertrude FBK. He is one of the group including the Ishigakis (both of whom have articles), so I think he merits one. I found the following book he (self-)published (but it's poetic-idiosyncratic, not just crackpottery).

https://archive.org/details/creationdawnavis00kann

He was a pupil of Joaquin Miller, which explains the odd "Hights" spelling; see p 163 in this reference:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jeigakushi1969/1995/27/1995_27_151/_pdf

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jeigakushi1969/2001/33/2001_33_105/_pdf

See also Yone Noguchi, father of Isamu Noguchi.

Sorry, this is the result of hurried research, but I think it is adequate justification. :Imaginatorium (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Imaginatorium, I don't know much about Japanese topics, can you give more details why this is notable, why is "See also Yone Noguchi, father of Isamu Noguchi" important, why is being a pupil of Joaquin Miller notable. I wish we had some sources about him, like academic sources that mention him. -- GreenC 15:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I do not suggest he is "very important"; and I had never heard of any of these people (except Isamu Noguchi) until the other day. However, the other names all have WP articles, and Kanno has an odd pivotal role between the others. From what I read the other day, he was eclipsed by Yone Noguchi as a Miller pupil, and had his wife stolen by Ishigaki, so he helps to hold the story together. The two PDF references above are a couple of articles in Japanese on his life, but have substantial English summaries at the end. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE As the article stands now, it's a strong delete. Notability not established, inherited notability doesn't count, and there's nothing in the article per WP:V and WP:RS to support any claim of notability. The article would need to be expanded drastically with a discussion of his life, poetry, styles/influences, etc. No where near that now. If the article improves in the short-term, I'd reconsider, but it's best to delete this and let someone draft something more substantial before moving it into articlespace again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bebe_Rexha#Singles. No prejudice against un-redirection should its status under WP:NMUSIC change. slakr^\ talk / 04:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't Stop Drinking About You[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and is not a Featured Article JMHamo (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the FA tag, let me know if that wasn't the right thing to do. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bebe_Rexha#Singles. An article doesn't have to be a featured article to have notability, but it's still too soon for an entry. If/when this gains more coverage, we can always un-redirect. So far, I just don't see where there's much coverage about the single. The Nylon Magazine interview is a good start, but it's too light for now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give some time for more information to be added. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 02:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments are clearly weighted towards keeping, although I note that sources would be nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Buckmaster, 4th Viscount Buckmaster[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Viscount who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing notable about him. Has not been in the House of Lords.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Businessman activity is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Probably notable for having been chief exec of Avecia, a small plc, apparently taken over in 2011 to become a subsidiuary of Nitto Denko. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Let us discuss for one more week. So far deletes were based on WP:GNG and some of the keeps represented personal opinions, but at least the Avecia argument is worthwhile to be discussed, and may be there could be additional keep arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps in fifty years, none of this will matter. However, even nowadays, being a peer gives such a socioeconomic advantage in life that one almost always becomes notable due to business networking and the old boy network. In this case, the Viscount has been engaged in high-level registered charity and business work, so he'd probably be notable for those activities. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naima Neidre[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A High Beam search reveals one mention of this person, as the illustrator of a book of poems. A Google search, as far as I went down the list of entries, reveals only web sites which sell her art. I agree with the nomination. I found nothing to show that this person is notable. Donner60 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2014 (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 10:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are affiliated with the subject. Nothing to pass creative bio to keep the article. Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 06:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merit Motion Pictures[edit]

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

No indication of notability, only one of 52 sources is a reliable third-party source, and it doesn't provide enough details about the company to write an article. A Google search for additional sources came up empty. Huon (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 52 sources! And it is credited in IMDB as producing i think 23 films. IMDB is not reliable for some things, but is reliable about basics like that. Editing is needed: the references are "in-line" format but all located in the section for references, not at the relevant locations in the article / table itself. But editing quibbles belong at the Talk page, not at AFD. --do ncr am 23:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't matter how many sources there are. If there were 100 sources, and all of them were invalid, it would still get deleted. IMDb can not be used to establish notability. We need verifiability, and the IMDb does not generally offer that. That said, I'm too lazy to go through 50-some citations to ascertain which ones are reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick skim of the "references" in the article doesn't show any reliable sources that are about the company, only about various episodes and shows. The only two I could find are not enough to justify an article.[8][9] Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep The company head Merit Jensen Carr is a notable Canadian filmmaker, and no bio article exists on her yet. Last year alone, she won the Don Haig Award at Hot Docs, a lifetime award-type honour in Canadian doc cinema, and (less notably) was honoured by the Winnipeg Film Group. So per WP:PRESERVE, a suggest repurposing this as an article about her, with a certain amount of pruning and new info to reflect focus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Carr seems borderline at best as far as WP:FILMMAKER is concerned. She hasn't gotten a lot of press, par for the course for documentary makers not named Michael Moore. The Don Haig Award (worth $10,000) is okay, but it's no Gemini. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film production company. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost no coverage at all at any major American or Canadian source. As expected, I got a few hits at the Winnipeg Free Press, but they were just trivial mentions or routine business. I'm not convinced that the founder is notable enough for an article, either; DGG would probably say that the awards are minor. I'd rather keep production companies, distributors, and festivals, but some just aren't notable enough to support an article, even though they're potentially linked from numerous articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theoria and Praxis[edit]

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

Relatively new, non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Too soon. Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your criticism. I don't know why Wiki's editors are in rush all the time. Yesterday 15 minutes right after I posted the skeleton of the article, I see a half page note with a heading "speedy deletion" because I did not have enough sources. I added few sources then I get another note titled "article for deletion" because I did not include any indexes. I add index, now it is about "Relatively new, non-notable journal". Yes, it is not a 100 year old journal, but it is going to publish its third issue in two months. And please stop calling it "non-notable", because if your background is social sciences and you go check the editorial board of the journal, you will see that its= is indeed very notable. Btw. the journal is on Google scholar, you just need type the complete title. And for your information, the journal is currently being reviewed for indexing by JSTOR and Philosopher's Index. And one final note: please give me some time to work on it. I was going to develop the article slowly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exminre

Comment Exminre, there must be a misunderstanding here. The current version of this article was not proposed for speedy deletion, that CSD notice on your talk page is months old (and it wasn't for lack of sources, either, but for a copyvio). There is a bot warning considering this article, that's all. Having looked at the article, it was pretty easy to see that it does not meet any of our inclusion criteria. Therefore I placed a "PROD" tag. No hurry there, either, because such a tag gives the community (including yourself, of course) seven (7) days time to find adequate sources before the article gets deleted. As you immediately removed the PROD (now who is in a hurry... :-), I opened this AFD discussion, which also will last for seven (7) days. If no sources can be found in a week, it's pretty safe to assume that there aren't any. I'm pretty confident that this will be the case, but will happily withdraw this nom if you can find any evidence of notability that I may have missed. --Randykitty (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Randykitty, I have included 6-7 more sources. I will continue working on it. Please let me know if I need to provide more info. Thank you. Exmin

@Exminre:, references 3-8 are about the inclusion of this journal in databases like Google Scholar and DOAJ (and the other ones listed in the article), but none of those databases is both selective and major (GS obviously is "major", but like Google tries to index the whole web, GS tries to index all scholarly literature, for example; I'd never heard of "JURN", but it's website says it's "powered by Google", so that's not selective either). References 1 and 2 are to the journal's homepage. In short, you still need to come up with references that either discuss the journal in-depth (usually very difficult for academic journals) or show that it is indexed in major selective databases. As it stands, there is absolutely no evidence of notability, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Randykitty, Hi Randy. Thanks again. I would like to remind you that T&P is a new journal and as you may know major indexes take close to a year to review and get back to one. currently, T&P is being reviewed by JSTOR, PhilPapers, The Philosopher's Index, Thompson and Reuters, and Sociological Abstracts. Once they include T&P into their data I will update the wiki page. There is not much else I can do at this point other than waiting. Best. Exmin.

Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON then... --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2014 (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 01:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, my general rule for philosophy journals notability is that it should indexed by Philosopher's Index and PhilPapers. So I would vote delete for now (copy to user space and wait for the review to be done). This is supposed to be an interdisciplinary journal though, so maybe some other indices are relevant: I don't know. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:49, 15 March 2014 (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 10:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Frazier[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler. He spent his career in minor promotions without major impact. His career is 4 or 5 lines. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Previously deleted following AfD debate. Still fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT or WP:ATHLETE (wherever it should belong). mikeman67 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - definitely only wrestled in minor promotions, of which those mentioned in the article CZW's the biggest I believe, but he's never held their top/main championship. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my delete vote. Did a google search, he's been reported 142 times by PWTorch, 98 times by WrestleView, 64 times by PWInsider, 36 times in F4Wonline. The sources are out there, someone just needs to insert them into the prose and beef up the "career" section. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, in that case, can somebody improve the article? It's a petty to keep the article (if it's notable) and leave it without make up. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CZW and MCW help to establish his notability. Everyone needs to remember that appearing in WWE or TNA do not establish the notability. It is appearing in various promotions, winning titles, and getting reported about which helps. PWI report, two CZW titles, two MCW accomplishments. Certainly notable enough.--WillC 19:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the CZW nor the MCW titles were the main title of the company. He's won two secondary titles each, which is not enough to qualify as a major success in my opinion. Anyway, his career section has zero sources. The only sources are for the titles he's won, and they're Solie Title History and Puroresu Dojo? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know about wrestling outside WWE and TNA. However, even for independent wrestlers, I think isn't notable. Two minor titles in minor promotions. CZW Tag Team title was held by 60 wrestlers, but we haven't articles for every one. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CZW has had world-wide tours. They have shows in Germany. In fact they are pretty big in Germany. CZW isn't a minor promotion and MCW has had people from Jerry Lawler to Homicide to the New Age Outlaws involved with the promotion which has resulted in it getting a wider name. I'm the one who got the heavyweight title to FL and all of the CZW titles to FL. I understand how popular they really are. They aren't exactly minor promotions. Not huge, but pretty close to the size of ROH.--WillC 11:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close to the size of ROH... in 2008? ROH has been on national TV since 2009. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One way to judge wrestling promotions' notability in the US is TV/PPV in my opinion. TV/PPV determines their outreach and audience size. Major promotion tier 1 is WWE (including NXT branch), TNA with international TV and PPV outreach. Major promotion tier 2 is ROH with national TV outreach. Minor promotions should be judged as to whether they have a TV product (within states) or iPPV capability.

Minor promotion tier 1a for 2014 so far - limited TV product - Championship Wrestling from Hollywood (KDOC-TV, Los Angeles), OVW (ION, Louisville and WOBZ-TV 9, London) and AAW (MaddyGTV on Roku).

Minor promotion tier 1b for 2014 so far - iPPV capability - EVOLVE / DGUSA / SHINE (via WWNLive), CZW / WSU (via CZWiPPV.com), PWX via Highspots.tv and IZW via GoFightLive.tv.

Everything else goes in Minor promotion tier 2 and is very minor IMO. Surprise, CZW has been running iPPVs since 2011 at least, so they're maybe a top minor promotion after all. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CZW has been airing tv on G4 for several years.--WillC 17:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know it. However, it means CZW is notable, not the wrestlers. Yeah, the wrestlers will be notable if they appear in CZW, but not every wrestler. For example, current Tag team champions haven't their own article, like former champions like Andy Sumners, Eric Ryan, Dustin Rayz, Devon Moore...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is national exposure. In CZW's case it is international exposure.--WillC 00:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, WillC? It sounded like you were saying that they had a regular television program with international exposure on G4 for years. I did some research, apparently before Feb '11, CZW footage that aired on G4 TV's Attack of the Show on Thursday evening. These emails have been fans asking CZW why G4 TV is only showing clips and not a whole CZW show and if G4 TV is planning on airing a CZW TV Show. Really sounds like a one-off feature to me, not a regular television series. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have been airing specials and other things on G4 and I think Fight. I didn't mean a series. Exposure on tv is what I mean. All I know is from when I expanded the CZW titles and I found information along the way. I discovered that CZW is bigger and more successful than it seemed.--WillC 08:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't count that they have been regularly on TV if they were merely featured twice. It's a one-off thing. They have been regularly producing iPPVs though, I'll give them that.

Promotion via The Wrestler (film) as well.--WillC 04:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can talk about CZW and the TV, or we can talk about the wrestler. Yeah, CZW is notable, no doubt. Is Frazier notable, even if he appeared in CZW? Remember, a lot of CZW champions haven't an article (like the current Tag team champions, Eric Ryan, Andy Sumners, Devon Moore, Vorktez... Also, we have wrestlers who wrestled in ROH PPVs and they haven't articles (Adam Page, Tadarious Thomas, Cedric Alexander, Silas Young... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And people not taking the effort to write their articles is an issue for this one why? They may be notable as well, just means no one has attempted to write one. Eddie Edwards didn't have an article when he debuted in ROH, this Nici wrote one. I expected their to be no information on him and it was a very good sized article. C class if I recall. It is all about effort.--WillC 20:29, 10 March 2014 (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 01:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a minor wrestler with no notable impact, Frazier does not meet notability reqs. Also, 4 of the sources are essentially the same source. --PDX er1 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete State and local pro wrestling titles? Not notable! A ranking of #273 doesn't do it either.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Few Things Left Unsaid[edit]

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

Can't see a single trace of notability as we need per WP:NBOOK. Created by User:Sudeep Nagarkar, who shares name with the author of the book, thats the only edit made by this user. Also the author's article Sudeep Nagarkar is AfD by me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bunch of unreliable and dead links. There's only one working secondary, independent and reliable source ([10]). Unfortunately one is just not enough. At least first 7 google search page results into none RS. However, taking into consideration multiple reviews published into many online stores, notability could be established as NBOOK says,

"A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources including reviews" (WP:BKCRIT).

Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which "multiple reviews" are you talking about? Can you link some here? The one TOI link you gave above says "A recently published book, "Few Things Left Unsaid" sold 8,000 copies within a fortnight." and that's all it writes about the book. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant these, [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. These reviews in multiple sources might help to establish notability of this particular book as per NBOOK (WP:BKCRIT). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Publishing of the stuff like; book's-name, author's-name, about-author, book's-plot, price-discounts-if-added-to-cart, out-of-stock-status, reader's-views; don't count as book review. Thats called online advertising for online shopping.These all sites are actually selling the book. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they are selling books but they have published review of the book as well. For example, please visit one more time these two links, [26], [27]. They have "Overview" and "Author" section and they discuss the same. Doesn't it contribute to establish notability of the subject? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those two aren't proper critical reviews that offer the opinion and analysis of an educated/experienced critic. They are just describing what the plot is about. Wikipedia doesn't use reviews written by members of the public (which the crossword.in review appears to be) or reviews that are just descriptions of a product on sale (the rediff.com "review" is more like a publisher's blurb). Notability is shown by being reviewed in a publication that is selective about what it reviews; the reliability of a source is shown either by the reputation of the source or of the author, and the fact that submissions are edited and fact-checked. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backing up what Colapeninsula is saying here: most of the sources are either merchant sites (which are pretty much never usable as a source in any fashion) or they're social media type sites where anyone can review. I hate to put it this way, but the given opinion of the general public doesn't count towards notability. Only the reviews by organizations, publications, and individuals that meet our WP:RS guidelines can count towards notability. This rules out a lot of blog sources, as most of them are self-published, aren't run through any sort of verifiable editing process, etc. (See WP:BLOGS) There are exceptions to the blog rule, but it's fairly rare and usually it's only a usable source when you have someone along the lines of Michiko Kakutani or YALSA posting something on their blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 6 March 2014 (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 01:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newsview Media Network[edit]

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

Basically an advertisement; I'm not seeing any claim to notability other than who launched it. Yes, it's a news org...that exists exclusively online, powered by WordPress, without any evidence that its existence has been covered or discussed. Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, between the copyright issues (http://trak.in/tags/business/2013/10/01/indian-online-news-consumption-toi-tops-12-7-mln-comscore/) and the promotional tone, even if this were notable we'd have to start from scratch. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:36, 11 March 2014 (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 01:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence supplied or found that this website has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanaian name[edit]

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

I noticed that this article has a misleading article title and is a duplicate of another title "Akan names". The various ethnic groups in Ghana have a completely different system so the Akan system cannot possibly speak for all. The title should have been "Akan names" but since another article with the same title exist I suggest a merge the two articles or deletion of this one. Masssly (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the nomination. The material is essentially identical as Akan names, with this article having an extra unsourced section on "personality types" for the different names, so I don't think a merge would be useful; also not sure about a redirect given that there are other groups/languages in Ghana (as far as I can tell), but I do support getting rid of this somehow. ₆an⁶sh₆ 23:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, If so why not we restructure this article as the name implies: Ghanaian names to cover all the naming based in Ghana as stated by Masssly rather than deleting. Also you can notice clearly at the bottom this article it shares a common template {{Names in world cultures}}. Which includes Akan names as well. The best thing to do in my view here is to keep the title and make the article represent what it should as in Ghanaian names; there by representing all the ethnic groups even if they have individual articles. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reconstruction of the whole article as suggested by Enock4seth in a more representative manner is not a bad idea, compare with Zimbabwean names. The article started as a merger from Traditional Names in Ghana by Dominic. Masssly (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Zimbabwean names doesn't have a single source, so I'm going to tag it as such... Anyways, I guess an expansion in scope would work here as well. But what should we do with the current content? Because Akan names of course would still exist. ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2014 (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 01:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone adds info on other peoples/languages, redirect to Akan names, tag as {{R with possibilities}}. Some details could be also be merged there. – Fayenatic London 12:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 !votes to delete aside from nominator (who should really sign his/her name...), arguments about discussion of song accepted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who Am I Living For?[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG for no significant coverage outside of album reviews.

Keep. Despite a lack of significant coverage, which I'm inclined to favor in song articles, and which is heavily recommended in WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, the latter guideline does have some flexibility in allowing articles on non-notable songs. NSONGS notes that even if a song is not notable, an article is "appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". So, while my preference is to not have a standalone article when it consists entirely of trivial, non-independent coverage (i.e., sheet music, liner notes, a non-significant chart placement, and single-sentence mentions within the context of album reviews), current consensus supports a different outcome, which is to keep articles on songs that do not meet WP:GNG but satisfy the "reasonably detailed" sentence of WP:NSONGS. Gong show 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm surprised by you voting keep when you acknowledge it lacks significant coverage. Not sure where a consensus opposing WP:NSONGS and/or WP:GNG is held. This isn't exactly that detailed, either..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A reasonably detailed article" as defined by NSONGS is when it has grown beyond a stub, a bar which this article has surpassed. The clause does not explicitly require the material to have been obtained within significant/non-trivial/non-independent coverage. Gong show 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the part of "reasonably detailed". "Notability aside" doesn't mean that length covers up for lack of notability, it was saying that however notable something might be, the notable thing(s) would require enough in-depth coverage to make something more than a stub. Even if not explicitly in NSONGS, GNG requires more coverage, which this fails. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Gongshow has stated above, the article passes the "reasonably detailed" requirement of WP:NSONGS. It's rare that any song receives commentary outside of an album review (the only exception usually being a lead single). I'm quite content with the amount of information available and her discussing the song in great detail is a bonus. — Status (talk · contribs) 02:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have misunderstood the "reasonably detailed" bit of WP:NSONGS as well. The "reasonably detailed" bit does NOT include comments from album reviews and doesn't indicate that length can take precedence over lack of notability/significant coverage. Commentary from song authors themselves don't really count for much, either. Plenty of songs that aren't lead singles get significant coverage outside of album reviews, but this isn't one of them. In any case, it fails WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case my previous comments hadn't already been counted, Redirect to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) or Delete since the "reasonably detailed bit again does NOT make up for lack of significant coverage, the commentary from Katy herself seems like a case of WP:MASK. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2014 (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 02:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Dewilde[edit]

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

No sources except a dead link, and online search only turns up mentions on fringe blogs. mikeman67 (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Fringe sources need cleaning out, but the topic is notable. Apparently Dewilde got a lot of coverage in 1950s France. Disinterested academics discuss the media's distortion and cultural impact of his tale: [28], [29]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That means it was essentially WP:ONEEVENT and against WP:NOT#NEWS. Particularly in the mid 20th century, a person claiming an extra-terrestrial encounter that generated temporary media coverage can hardly be said to be notable. It's not like there's even a section of the book dedicated to him (let alone an entire book or article), it looks like just a page in the book as an example. mikeman67 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some Frenchie is going to have to work on this one. A lot of the reliable-looking sources were in French. I realize blogs aren't reliable sources to reference, BUT the way I look at it, if he's important enough that that crowd is talking about him, people are going to be coming here looking for him, and if people are coming here looking for him, that's notable enough in my book. Bali88 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2014 (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 02:02, 14 March 2014 (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 10:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Fleisch[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. He spent his career in minor promotions. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Appears to have achieved enough success to be notable. STATic message me! 20:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: CZW and FWA establish notability for him.--WillC 19:16, 5 March 2014 (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 02:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Fury[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. She spent her career in minor promotions. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she lost a two-minute match on WWE SmackDown and spent the rest of her career in minor companies primarily around Europe. Not notable overall as a pro wrestler due to lack of exposure and success. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2014 (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 02:06, 14 March 2014 (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 10:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable wrestling accomplishments. Also fails WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Freedom Party[edit]

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

Non-notable political party. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Political parties are not inherently notable. That said I do tend to favor a broad inclusionist position when it comes to this topic, provided we are talking about a national party and not the state chapter of a minor party. But as with all topics, common sense dictates some limits need to be applied. In the absence of clear guidance from WP:N beyond WP:GNG (which they don't seem to meet), my baseline for notability is ballot access. Are they now, or have they ever been, on the ballot in any state? As far as I can tell the answer appears to be no. If/when WP:RS evidence to the contrary is found I am open to reconsideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2014 (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 10:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. Holding[edit]

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

Non-notable Christian apologist. Self-published. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete. Only tiny cites in GS for usually well cited field of pop-theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2014 (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 10:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 2, no WP:GNG evidence.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 04:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Shofe[edit]

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

I see many references to his own presentations, and a good many routine reports in trade newspapers about them. I do not see any firm evidence of notability. What this therefore amounts to is a promotional biography. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the pure primary sources, I am seeing passing role coverage. The most substantial is this from Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "...held posts in the administration of former Gov. Arne Carlson and the Minnesota Republican Party, represented the industry-funded Tobacco Institute from 1992 to 1996... a Washington lobbyist for British American Tobacco" ([30] via Highbeam, subscription reqd), but that is really just a diary item potted biography. Insufficient evidence of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up for a short time for improvement before deleting: I think there is a case to be made for both sides (delete or keep). For keeping the page up, I looked at the cited sources. I counted 7 different sources that appear to be reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. (Democracy in Action; thehill.com; p2012.org; Daily Finance; BioPrepWatch; Washington Business Journal; Washington Post; and Bloomberg Businessweek). I added a couple today to beef up the article's credibility.
- However, the article comes up short in meeting the criteria for "significant" coverage, and needs more improvements to meet the overall worthy of notice criterion.
- I'd suggest soliciting improvements to the page for a short time period, and see what can be done with it. Thanks. Nhj78992 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - I've searched for sources in factiva and can only find brief mentions and press releases. Quite some way from meeting the requirements of WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The arguments for/against above are actually moot now. The page is completely different today than when this template was applied. Old resume content deleted. New interesting/unusual type content added. The guy is no Barry Bonds, but he's notable enough among the Washington, D.C. scene. And if we have state legislators and small town mayors having their own Wikipedia articles, then this guy having one is probably fine. Trendyrandy7290 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2014 (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 10:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG as per the sources now listed in the article and at least one more source mentioned on this page. Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Perednik[edit]

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

It's badly written, and there are no good sources that are able to be used for the article. 123chess456 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete. 36 cites on GS. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Is there anything else? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, Considering 76,000 search results and his popularity. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GHits do not say anything about notability, substantial reliable sources do. And being popular also needs to be verifiable through reliable sources. (BTW: just changing your Google search to "Gustavo Perednik" reduces the number of GHits to 31,600... --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to say that Google Trends doesn't actually have enough search volume for Perednik to make a Google Trends graph, so he does not get that much search volume. Agreeing that the list of Google results do not mean whether somebody or something is notable or not. 123chess456 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks as though most of what is written about him is in languages other than English, such as Spanish and Hebrew. One source, from among those pointed to by the above Keep !voter, states: "Perednik is the author of 15 books on Jews and modernity." More on his background is here. An audio of him being interviewed on Arutz Sheva is here. He appears to be the main subject of this article here, and is interviewed here as well (in German?). In this book by Anatoly Shcharansky he is referred to as an "anti-semitism expert." There is much more for anyone who has the time and language proficiency, but even these look to point to notability so far. (And yes, the nom is correct -- it is poorly written and needs work .. but that is not a deletion rationale at AfD.)--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research, Epeefleche. I think this may have changed the nominator's mind about deleting the article, am I right, 123chess456? Also, the article has been edited and now looks pretty good to me in terms of wiki standards. Shalom11111 (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the article still should be improved -- but that is not an AfD issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2014 (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 10:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Epeeleche's explanation and the minor improvements that the article has undergone by now, I think it's clear to everyone, including the article's deletion nominator, that we should keep the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me, I'm afraid. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You voted delete because you said the article doesn't meet WP:Prof#C1, but as Epeefleche showed, his influence and coverage is significant in other languages. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many more times do I have to say that my view is unchanged? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Low keep unless I am wrong I read the lead and didn't find anything that would deserve to keep it. The gentleman studied, which is good. As I did. Anyway, I scrolled down to try to find something worth keeping the article. He wrote several books and an article. In such circumstances, the criteria is to have been published (but not to self publish). There is this editor "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" who published him and they seem to have a peer review board. If this is a sufficient criteria, we could keep it. I don't know what are the principles currently used to consider having been published is enough to consider an article could be kept but I think it could be enough. But we have the minimum and nothing more. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these issues are discussed in the WP:Prof guidelines. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolof Wikipedia[edit]

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

Not notable, the only "reliable" source may not have mentioned this edition at all The ChampionMan 1234 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Oppose: We have a precedent for articles on other Wiki versions, so I believe it would be an example of our systematic bias if we were to get rid of this one.Brigade Piron (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- We actually have a precedent to redirect non-notable versions to List of Wikipedias - these follow WP:GNG as much as anything else. ansh666 04:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasonable doubt that it is mentioned in the source (Google Books says that there's a mention), but trim out some unsourced info, which I'll do if it's kept. ansh666 04:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikipedias. Single keep !vote is completely unrelated to policy, redirects are cheap — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirundi Wikipedia[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable, where it says, 'four million articles by jan 2012' is not true The ChampionMan 1234 10:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Most of what the article says actually applies to the English-language version of wikiepdia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Related article Piedmontese Wikipedia was just AFD'd this month, and I !voted Keep, and decision was to Keep, and then it was renominated for deletion again. All of these are notable, and it is appropriate for any language Wikipedia to have coverage of other-language Wikipedias. I would wish for someone to speedily close this and related AFDs, as a waste of time. --do ncr am 17:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a non-notable wiki (see [31], for precedent). ansh666 04:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikipedias. Single keep !vote is completely unconvincing, redirects are cheap — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmontese Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not state anything about notability, nor does it have reliable sources. The ChampionMan 1234 10:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete No indication that this website is significant or important.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was just AFD'd this month, and I !voted Keep, and decision was to Keep. What has changed? I would wish for someone to speedily close this and related AFDs, as a waste of time. --doncram 17:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing has changed; it was just the wrong decision the first time. ansh666 04:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a non-notable wiki (see [32], for precedent). ansh666 04:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 04:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monologic expertise[edit]

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

Questionable content, and no justification of notability. The corresponding dialogic expertise article is dubious, and this even more so. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~The term looks as though it was made up by someone who thought that the 'dia' in 'dialogic' means two. (I mean the original academic cited, not the user.)~~ And the glowing references to post-modernism make it hard to take seriously. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I retract the statement above, because of course "monologue" is in contrast to "dialogue". But nonetheless, this all seems to rely on the work of one particular author, and there is no particular reason to use their terminology. There must surely be at least one Wikipedia article on collaborative editing - oh, yes, there is! Imaginatorium (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Imaginatorium that these terms make no real sense as they are being used. Expertise at monologue or dialogue is not what is meant by these terms as coined but expertise developed through monologue or dialogue. That surely refers to "learning" or "collaborative writing or editing", as Imaginatorium suggests. Of course, many things or terms or idea that make no sense nonetheless would be considered notable. But a search on High Beam reveals only two articles in which monologic and expertise are used in the same article and they are not used together. A search on Google finds little more except the article about Wikipedia in which collaborative writing or editing producing a better more expert product is found. So even if we were to grant that these phrases mean something, or even are better ways to express other concepts, we cannot find they are notable or used outside this very small context. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2014 (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 10:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to body water. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Animal body water[edit]

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

There is an existing article for body water. The term "Body Water" an abstraction used in physiology that is conceptually no different between humans and animals. I had proposed a deletion, but it was deleted, without comment, by an IP user. Attaboy (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Per source searches, the topic itself meets WP:N. The Body water article is presently only about body water in humans, so a merge would require expanding the scope of the Body water article to cover both humans and animals. Outright deletion would be excessive, because this is a notable topic. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in this article that can't be said about body water (as the other article is titled). Maybe I should have proposed a merge, but I didn't see anything worth salvaging out of this article. For instance, the first reference, which is used to write the majority of the article, isn't even talking about the physiological concept of body water. Instead, it's an agricultural education textbook's answer to the question of "Why do animals need water?" The second and third references are in reference to human physiology, so they wouldn't really be applicable in an article talking about body water of animals, in exclusion of humans! You're right, body water article should be modified to clarify when it is specifically talks about body water in the context of humans. However, I can't think of any differences that would exist between humans and other mammals, in regard to body water, with the exception of differing proportions of tissue types. Attaboy (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "source searches"? Did you find anything that makes a distinction between animal body water and body water in general? If animal body water is in no way distinct from body water in general, how can this be notable? Attaboy (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source searches are just that. Here's some examples of coverage in books:

Fluid, Electrolyte, and Acid-Base Disorders in Small Animal Practice
Essentials of Animal Physiology
The Encyclopedia of Farm Animal Nutrition
Animal Osmoregulation
Animal Nutrition Science

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. I read them, but they don't make a distinction between body water in animals compared to humans. Body water is a physiological concept - As such, there's not going to be a notable distinction between animals and humans. Would you be in favor of merging the two articles? 1) Animal body water would be redirected to Body Water, 2) where needed the language of Body water would be clarified to include all animals, and 3) any useful content from Animal body water would be moved into Body water. Attaboy (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There are enough similarities to merge it, but it leaves room for an article to be tailored only to human health. Merge anyway, but keep is also acceptable. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 14 March 2014 (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 10:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above; humans are animals, after all. ansh666 05:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Pembroke[edit]

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

I can't see that this person is encylopedic. He is just another soldier, failing WP:Soldier. IMO, not notable enough Gbawden (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. An MC is certainly not high enough to confer automatic notability. And neither is his rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2014 (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 10:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 04:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Sergienko[edit]

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

created by a single purpose editor so probable WP:AUTOBIO. Claim to notability is founding Edway Group which is currently at AfD. Fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nomination: there's no evidence of notability here. Nick-D (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2014 (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 10:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 04:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Yadav[edit]

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

Non-notable film director. References currently in the article only mention him in passing and I can't find any other that would prove notability. According to IMDB he only has two short films to his name. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG by wide margin. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:05, 21 March 2014 (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 10:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also WP:G11 slakr^\ talk / 03:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Fantasy Parade[edit]

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

Looks like a Wiki Press Release based on prospective promotional and fan publications. No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or other criteria for notability of special events. I am sure it was a lovely show, but it does not appear to be an independently notable attraction of the theme park. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopelessly promotional. The original sources both fail WP:RS. I was able to locate two sources in a Google search. The first was too brief to pass RS. I added the other. But I don't think it's enough to ring the notability bell. Subject still fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Bottom line here is that Disney runs parades on a more or less daily basis at most of their parks. And periodically they change themes. As the nom observed, they are undoubtedly very entertaining, but it violates commonsense to suggest that they all deserve their own article. There is nothing here that makes this one special. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research. Note that the Orlando Sentinel article is also prospective: it covers an advance promotion event. Not to belittle the reporter's research efforts, this strikes me as more in the nature of promotion (local business boosterism) than significant coverage, but that reflects my own sense of what "significant" signifies. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2014 (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 09:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ningauble (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following articles have been tagged for deletion with reference to this discussion, but were not included in the nomination or discussed above:

(It was not I who tagged them.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Institute for the Study of Labor. One keep !vote recognized the possibility for a redirect, the other was WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Redirected to publisher. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IZA Journal of Labor Economics[edit]

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

Article was PRODded and then de-PRODded. For the discussion about that, see Talk:IZA Journal of Labor Economics here. Prod reason was: "Non-notable relatively new journal that has published a grand total of 17 articles since it was established in October 2012. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Prod reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation. The subject appears to fall short of WP:NJournals as it stands. This may however be a reflection of its relative newness. That said, after reading the arguments by the article's creator on the talk page, I came away unconvinced of current notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge It is difficult to evaluate new journals. Among the factors librarians use for this, is whether they are by an established published, whether the authors of the first articles are from major institutions, and whether any of the articles first published get a substantial number of citations to them. SPring is the 2nd most important commercial publisher; essentially all the authors are from major institutions in the major science publishing coutnries, and of the first dozen articles published there are ones with citations on 49, 24, and 18. The journal is also indexed in the 2 principle economics subject indexes. I think this is sufficient. Since the publishing institute is a notable one with a WP article, at the very least the content could be merged and redirected to Institute for the Study of Labor. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Every publisher publishes the occasional dud and Springer is no exception. Examples are the International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies and Research on Language and Computation, which existed only for a limited time and then folded. I think that it is therefore unjust to assume implicit notability for a journal from a large publisher as opposed to a journal from a smaller publisher. The economics indexes, as far as I know, are not very selective: as long as something has a bearing on economics, they'll want to cover it. I don't see a problem, though, with having a brief mention in the article on the Institute for the Study of Labor. --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please note that there is a second existing article on the IZA_Journal_of_Migration. There also 3 additional journals, IZA Journal of Development Economics, IZA Journal of Labor Policy and IZA Journal of European Labor Studies that had a seemingly similar successful start, though they are similarly not included in SSCI so far and have no article yet, though I would like to work on these during the next weeks. I think given the contributions by well-known scholars in the fields and the character of open access, which is still an exception at least in economics, the journals have a sufficient degree of notability, though it is indeed difficult to find independent sources at the time being. Iwonderwhereifloatnext (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That there are other journals published by the IZA does not add any notability. If anything, the simultaneous launch of several journals increases the risk that they are overreaching themselves and that some of those journals will tank. OA is nowadays not an exception in any field anymore and even though there are probably more OA medical journals, economics is not an exception. Even if this were true, though, it would not really be anything special, given the ubiquitousness of OA journals all over the place nowadays, being the first in some subfield is not a notable feat any more. And as far as I can see, a journal that after 1.5 years cannot get more than 1 article per month published, is hard on its way into oblivion. I may be wrong about that, but the same goes for those predicting a glowing future for this journal and my crystal ball just fell in shards. --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was not meant to show notability, just information for the curios reader. Thanks for helpfully pointing out to WP:CRYSTAL, but as you can see both in the article and the comments so far, I do not try to predict anything according to the future of the journals, neither "its way into oblivion" nor a "glowing future". All information in the article is based on current information on the journal. Iwonderwhereifloatnext (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to CRYSTAL is meant to indicate that we cannot predict whether or not this journal will become notable. At this point, it is simply WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm neutral with regard to notability, but would it also be "too soon" if, say, Elsevier started an open access journal last August? Also, if EconLit counts as a selective database, then that probably would establish notability here since this journal is indexed in it. Jinkinson talk to me 02:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, TOOSOON would also apply to a new Elsevier journal. EconLit is not very selective, as far as I can judge. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2014 (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 09:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Institute for the Study of Labor ~~Keep~~ Publications have a low bar to inclusion on Wikipedia, because as editors we know the benefit of being able to use Wikipedia to check out our sources. What matters here is WP:V verifiability, not WP:N notability. There is no dispute but that there is reliable primary material. Without other sourcing this is a reason to merge as being non-notable, but not an argument to delete. I see no evidence in the nomination that the WP:ATD alternatives to deletion were considered. Unscintillating (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I didn't consider any alternatives, given the absolute lack of notability (in my eyes). --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in your viewpoint, lack of wp:notability means that there are no alternatives to deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your viewpoint, is there ever a reason for deletion? --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I've been labeled a deletionist once and four times I've been labeled an inclusionist. That says more about the people doing the labeling than it says about me. All of our policies are marked, "this page documents...a widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow. Here are the nutshells from our WP:Editing policy and from our WP:Deletion policy:

This page in a nutshell: Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it).

This page in a nutshell: Administrators have the ability to delete articles and other Wikipedia pages from general view, and to undelete pages that were previously deleted. These powers are exercised in accordance with established policies and guidelines, and community consensus. There are often alternatives to deletion.

Please support our policies. Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit baffled. I don't see any support for notability, no independent sources. If that is not a reason to propose an article for deletion, then I don't know what would. I don't see that as being in disagreement with any of our policies. --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is WP:PRESERVE a policy? (yes) Is WP:ATD a policy? (yes) In your viewpoint, does lack of wp:notability mean that there are no WP:ATD alternatives to deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you're arguing that we should do away with AFD :-) Anyway, the only thing we have at this point is a website confirming that the journal exists. There is no independent information that can be merged anywhere. The fact that the journal exists can be mentioned in Institute for the Study of Labor ("the institute publishes an academic journal, the IZA Journal of Labor Economics"), but I really don't consider that "merging", which in my eyes implies some more information. --Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, asking you to compare your viewpoint about wp:notability with the policy WP:ATD, is a closet attempt to end AfD? Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now we have some points of agreement. There is a sentence that can be added to Institute for the Study of Labor. This means that we have presumptive agreement on a place to redirect the title of the current topic. There is no argument (there could be, but there hasn't been) that any of the existing four sentences or the three references in the current article violate content policies. So there is no content-policy reason to delete and redirect. Everything else from there is a matter for the editors at the target article; including the WP:DUE of merging all four sentences from the current article, the addition of the four additional journals mentioned, and the potential to create a breakout article List of academic journals published at the Institute for the Study of Labor. If there is no objection, I will change my !vote to redirect and merge. Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting words in my mouth. Two of the three "references" are just links to the journal's own homepage (they just look different because they have been given different titles). The third reference is just a brief mention on a blog-type website (written by a postdoc) and of unclear notability. There is much information around that can be verified in reliable sources, but if there is no notability, there is no reason to include it on WP. So, yes, I'd be fine with redirecting this article and a short remark. I oppose merging everything that currently is in the article because that is not justified. --Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The questions I asked remain unanswered. Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for two of your points, I don't agree that AfD provides standing to bind editors against editing the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming that there is agreement with redirect and adding a short remark to the target article. I've taken the editorial prerogative of stubifying six journals at Institute for the Study of Labor, and changed my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indeed without prejudice of recreation. May be WP:TOOSOON, time will tell. New journals are judged on a scale of multiple years, with selective indices such as WoS requiring 5+ years of steady publication before the journal is even considered for inclusion. EconLit and RePEc are non-selective indices, in particular RePEc is more a repository than an index.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:V, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability. Unscintillating (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 03:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McDaniel[edit]

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

DELETE ~~or merge to Angelica McDaniel~~ as non-notable. Quis separabit? 19:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:N. Sources fail WP:RS. A Google search turned up nothing that would pass RS. That's three strikes. There is nothing here that's worth merging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2014 (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 09:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Football at the Military World Games. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2011 Military World Games[edit]

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

Non-notable football tournament, which fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. JMHamo (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we will delete too (2011 Military World Games) ???...!!!... (official link of the football tournament). Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These events may not be on the level of the Olympics, but nonetheless do seem to be a fairly major sporting event among world military forces. There is quite a bit that popped up on a quick Google search often from military websites. Sources from mainstream media may take some work though. At the risk of invoking an otherstuff argument, I am having a hard time seeing how we delete this, considering some of the other sports related articles that have gotten in. IMHO this meets the spirit if not perhaps the exact letter of the guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Football at the Military World Games; I don't see enough notability to merit a separate article. This article is also different to others, as playing in this tournament does not confer notability (unlike Olympics) - therefore the content will be very limited, and the lack of coverage in mainstream sources reflects this. Giant Snowman 09:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't merge because it's also considered as a part of the World Military Cup. And we need too, to create & separate all editions same as the football competitions. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to merge then we need to delete - and your comments that we need more of these articles is nonsensical. Giant Snowman 12:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake for me, I mean we will create articles about all editions. But sorry your reasoning is nonsensical, must we delete all articles about football editions of all competitions ??..!! --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2014 (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 09:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Football at the Military World Games per GiantSnowman. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Football at the Military World Games per GiantSnowman. Also assume if that is the decision then a review of this contested PROD would also be necessary. Fenix down (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It appears to me that, although Mendelson may not be notable as an author per se, he does pass the WP:GNG. Multiple sources have been put forth, in the article as well, covering the book, Mendelson's promotion of it and his use of social media. COI issues and promotional text have been cleaned up (and are not grounds for an AFD anyways). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Mendelson[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Fails WP:AUTHOR. WP:COI problem. Created by blocked ad-only user Talk:Royale.heart. Related to sockpuppet problem being cleaned up. John Nagle (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is related to a problem discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Paid_editing_clean_up --John Nagle (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Setting aside COI and other issues, there is significant coverage of the subject in and by WP:RS sources. This article clearly rings the GNG bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's written one minor book. 7,000 copies sold, Amazon rank #367,664. He's promoted that book on every social medium he can reach, including Wikipedia. That's all he's done. The book doesn't reach the notability level needed for WP:BOOK, and the author doesn't reach the notability level for WP:AUTHOR. John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete !vote by nominator struck as duplicative of nomination. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete He is a minor author who specializes in self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of coverage in multiple reliable sources. The number of books sold (a few or a lot) is of little importance (eg. best-sellers are not automatically notable). Notability is determined by the sources. -- GreenC 23:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the references aren't reliable sites. Some are sites anyone can edit, and others are just copy and pasted elsewhere. I'm looking through the ones that are reliable sources. [33] mentions this guy made money by sending in old cell phones to a company to recycle. Not much coverage about him though. [34] has brief bit about him doing something online about Breast Cancer that got 21,000 people to click follow. PBS did interview him, treating him as an expert on a subject. Is this an actual show someone is paid to do, or just one of the things anyone can do, and give them freely, and they run it? I see claims about writing in "CNN, Forbes, Mashable, The Huffington Post, the Eisner-nominated ComicsAlliance, and MTV’s O Music Awards". I Googled for two of those so far, and yes, he published articles in them. A lot of references in the article. Which two really would count towards his notability? Dream Focus 02:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This [35] and other reliable sources I've looked through convince me he passes the WP:GNG. I have removed some of the bad references from the article. Dream Focus 02:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article says he used to be in the top 100 on Twitter, back in 2009. But that was 5 years ago. Today, he's not anywhere close. He has 738K followers, and everyone in the top 100 on Twitter now has over 7 million. Looks like his notability may be over. John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporarily. Dream Focus 19:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator posted a question about this AFD at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Twitter notability, or famous for being famous. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either the author or his book is notable from going by sufficient sources covering the ideas behind book, but I would think the author is the better standalone here since his career started before the book. As others have noted, notability is not temporary so as long as he was previously noted as a top Twitter account, that doesn't change even if he now lags behind others. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly a PR effort. The article has "referenciness" but the references all seem to me to be trivial or press releases or what have you. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'Hi there. I'm the article subject. I will abide by your wishes and whatever decision you choose to make. This page was not paid for, and I hope I may point you to: http://bjmendelson.com/b-j-mendelson-in-the-press/ as a list of all media appearances I've made back to 2005 including CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Yahoo! News, WBEZ (a major NPR affiliate), TechCrunch, and the CBC. Thank you :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonmendelsonofficial (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. Mendelson for your comment. You are welcome to participate in this AfD discussion, however if you are new to Wikipedia and have not read WP:COI I would encourage you to take a look at it. Also please refrain from posting personal information on here. There is some tolerance for an email address posted on a user's page, but it is strongly discouraged elsewhere. And posting a personal phone number anywhere on the internet is a common sense no no. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ad Orientem. I don't have too much else to add here other than I am appreciative of everyone's time in looking into this. I am familiar with the COI rules but I'm not sure what else I can say beyond that I haven't paid anyone to make a page for me. I was approached by the editor after they saw a video of me on CNN. I agree the page was poorly constructed, but am hopeful that the editors here and in the larger community will make it adhere better to the page guidelines. The only thing I'd like to say is that there seems to be a larger issue of "Notable" vs. "Not notable enough". It would seem I am notable as per the guidelines as they currently exist, and there's just one or two editor who thinks I'm "not notable enough" through a subjective interpretation of the current guidelines. This seems like a larger Wikipedia policy issue worthy of discussion, but I think my page is probably an inappropriate place for that to happen. I am a Wikipedia fan, I know people on the board, and I strongly support the removal of sockpuppets and paid for pages, so I am not mad or annoyed about this whole thing. I understand why it's happening, and I hope that these comments I've made assist in the group rendering a decision. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonmendelsonofficial (talk • contribs) 16:12, 19 March 2014 (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 09:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 03:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bergfeld[edit]

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

This person does not reach the required notability for inclusion on Wikipedia (see WP:N). Andy (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Andy (talk) 00:00, 15 March 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 March 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Bergfeld has been the subject of, and or heavily quoted by, numerous WP:RS sources. That alone is enough to ring the notability bell (see WP:GNG). Beyond which he is indisputably a prominent figure in radical left student politics in Great Britain and was one of the instigators of the recent massive student riots. As far as I can tell he passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and arguably WP:POLITICIAN. All of that aside, many of the cited sources also fail RS for being affiliated or biased and in some cases are trivial in their coverage. But notability is not an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing my vote based on WP:BLP1E and compelling arguments by User:Andymmu. See way down in the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite Bergfeld being the subject of a newspaper article when he ran for the Presidency of NUS, since he lost that election quite heavily I don't think he can be called a notable person. He was a prominent figure of the student radical left, but the radical left in UK student politics is very small and has been for a significant amount of time now. Also, to describe the (albeit newsworthy) student protests of 2010 as massive or riots is very misleading, as is the the idea that Bergfeld was an instigator or organiser. The original NUS demonstration had nothing to do with Bergfeld (as he was an NUS council member, not an executive officer) and the protests that followed were organised by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts and the University of London Union, neither of which Bergfeld was an orgainiser in. His article is orphaned, which could be taken to mean that even the organisations he was a member of, such as the Socialist Workers Student Society (which does appear on Wikipedia), don't believe he is or was notable enough to be mentioned on their pages. I'm not saying that there wasn't a time where some students recognised his name, they would have had to been student politics hacks, and most current hacks wouldn't recognise him. Finally, WP:N#TEMP clearly states "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." I believe Bergfeld will remain a low-profile individual, and therefore the article should be deleted. Andy (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:POLITICIAN and the rest is all NN. He has apparently managed to get into the media as a SWP spokesman, but that does not make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2014 (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 09:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt we're going to get much more debate on this AfD discussion, but let me reiterate the clear guideline set down in the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP1E. Has Bergfeld had a major role in the student protests of 2010? No, not even any credible sources that implicate him. Did he stand for NUS President? Yes, but he wasn't elected (or even close) and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Has he been in the media? Yes, but not recently, and if I phoned up the Mail telling them I was a rebel student leader during those protests, I would have been quoted as well! Nevertheless, I will point you again to WP:BLP1E and say that he was only notable at all because of student activism (in a very minor way) and that passed some time ago. He is low profile and will continue to be so. Under Wikipedia policies, this article should be deleted. Andymmu^talk 00:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The subject unquestionably meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. With regard to his current doings, this is irrelevant. Notability has no expiration date and does not need to be renewed WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Once notable, always notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Read the GNG again. The subject is presumed, not guaranteed, to be suitable for a stand alone article. But nevertheless, around half of the references are primary sources (mostly websites of parties that he was involved with - his own articles do not give him notibility), and the secondary sources are either one or two line quotes or simply his name mentioned in passing (the basic criteria says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability") - with the exception of the article profiling him when running for NUS President, which he didn't win and therefore he fails WP:POLITICIAN, and even if all that wasn't enough WP:BLP1E is very clear. If reliable sources significantly cover a person only for one event, if that person remains a low-profile individual, if the event was not significant (if you're talking about the NUS Presidential election) or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented (for the student protests) then we should generally avoid having an article on such a person. So despite arguably (and certainly not "unquestionably") meeting the GNG, detailed Wikipedia policies clearly state we shouldn't have the article. Andymmu^talk 02:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, can I further point out that WP:BASIC specifically references WP:BLP1E as a policy that would exclude the subject from being notable, even if it would otherwise pass the GNG or have basic notability. Andymmu^talk 03:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have convinced me. BLP1E trumps BASIC and GNG. Changing my vote to delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Bonda[edit]

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

Non-notable neuroscientist. Only published a few articles between 1995-1996 JenShapiro (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. JenShapiro (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JenShapiro (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JenShapiro (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JenShapiro (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass the notability requirments for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 4 papers with high cites in GS but that's all. spa creator confuses Wikipedia with LinkedIn. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Some highly cited papers, as Xxan notes, but not the depth of citation I would expect to see for a pass of WP:PROF#C1 in this highly-cited area. No evidence of passing other WP:PROF criteria. Article reads more like a promotion of the subject's clinical practice than like the biography of a researcher. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 03:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jassim Haji[edit]

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

Non notable. Minor awards only 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Over 30,000 results, quite a lot as he is from Bahrain. OccultZone (Talk) 08:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I searched for "Jassim Haji" -wikipedia I only got "About 13,900 results", but at any rate, the number of Google results is not evidence of notability. (WP:GHITS)-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your efforts. If I may interject, I have added links to other Wikipedia articles, and I have added an update to the article of Gulf Air and a link to this article, so it is no longer an orphan nor a dead end. Further, if I may be heard about the fate of this article, I’m trying to compare this article with the following Wikipedia articles (Samer Majali, Jassim Mohammed Haji) where they have not been marked for deletion. Can someone please help me understand the difference? Again, thank you all.Wiki man 195 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per OccultZone. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gulf Air, since he seems to be notable only in his position as their IT director.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for multiple incidents. Check Conferences. OccultZone (Talk) 07:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a puff piece article. There is nothing in this article which indicated he passes WP:GNG nor WP:BIO. Seems to be an IT director ding his job (so what) and getting some publicity for doing it. scope_creep talk 16:34 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Passes WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk) 16:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any part that serves as a “puff piece” then by all means it should be removed. However, the article lists a series of facts that are supported by references. Since the subject is from the Middle East, so are the references. I would like to bring to your attention that there are other articles that have very references but they were not marked for deletion (Samir Majali,Jassim Mohammed Haji,Jassim Al Kazmawi,Jassim Al Saeedi). Can someone please help me understand the rationale and difference compared to this article so that I can improve it? I have already listed 24 references from wide range of online news sites, local newspapers and magazines. Wiki man 195 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Wiki man 195. This deletion nomination does not relate to the quality of the article, including the number or reliability of any references. The rationale for deletion is that the person who is the subject of the article is not notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. The notability guidelines can be found at WP:N, and since this article is about a person, more specific guidelines can be found at WP:BIO. The other articles you mention may also not reach the required notability, but those articles not being nominated (or indeed also being nominated) do not have a baring on the notability of this article. Andy (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2014 (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 / 06:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 03:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Hay, 14th Marquess of Tweeddale[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Marquess who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. While "being born" (or "being brother to a notable person") cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficiently notable to meet WP:N. Several of the subjects of this batch of AfDs are members of the "landed gentry" and as such, (a) the articles have the potential to be expanded; and (b) help add context for readers to the history of the many large (frequently Category A listed buildings) that have - or should have - articles). SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Is this the man whom I have seen featured on TV as a professional genealogist? If so, I am dubious oif his notability. If he is NN, the appropriate course is to merge into Marquess of Tweeddale. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2014 (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 / 06:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still say merge but no objection to keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether a merge occurs can happen after-the-fact re: this afd. slakr^\ talk / 03:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles John Tottenham, 9th Marquess of Ely[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Marquess who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. The only career mention given in Who's Who is "Director of Admissions (formerly Head of French Department), Strathcona-Tweedsmuir School, Calgary." Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough, which would be definitely better than having this almost-empty page. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Marquess of Ely. According to Who's Who], he was "Director of Admissions (formerly Head of French Department), Strathcona-Tweedsmuir School, Calgary, until 2004". Surely that malkes him NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2014 (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 / 06:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still say merge but no objection to keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The solution to incomplete pages is to edit them so they are no longer incomplete. As members of the higher nobility in a country where such nobility has an active legal status, they're notable . when they were legislators it was automatic under WP:POLITICIAN, but it makes sense even now when when they are not. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note: turnout on this was apparently influenced by selective canvassing, so there's no prejudice against speedy renomination. slakr^\ talk / 03:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Veith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been at AfD & deleted before: the rationale for recreation is that the recent accusation of antisemitism has created enough coverage to establish notability. However, there seems to be nothing about this character other than mentions on adventist websites (which are [pretty dismissive]) & hardcore fruit-loop conspiracy theorist pages. Of course, this silence could be down to the Pope acting in collusion with the Illuminati and of course the reverse Vampires.... TheLongTone (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you have put in the article on anti-Semitism, then you present it for deletion. That's seems a bit disingenuous IMHO.Simbagraphix (talk)

That is a misrepresentation of what little editing I have done on the article: it is almost entirely sourced from effectivly self published material, I simply added a quote from a different point of view. The article as it stands is far from neutral. I certainly did not add the stuff about anti-semitism.TheLongTone (talk)

Well it certainly appears in that manner and intent. Simbagraphix (talk)

Just how? What I have been doing is to firstly translate this into something approaching intelligable English and secondly trying to inject a bit of objectivity. Difficult since there are so few reliable sources: which is why I put it to AfD.TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My reason for starting this article had nothing to do with his antisemitism remarks, If indeed they are. Veith is a very popular speaker in the SDA world having spoken in churches and other venues all around the world. Whether some of his views are wacko to you is irrelevant. In the USA there is freedom of speech, which means that anyone can say anything they want. I don't know if this holds true on WP, but I thought it did. He is just as credible as all of the other SDA preachers, teachers, scholars, etc. who have WP pages. To be sure the article needs work. There are thousands and thousands of low quality WP articles that need lots of work and no one is running around trying to delete them. It seems that the main reason for trying to delete this one is because it runs counter to the beliefs of some editors. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ignore the allegation that this is a bad faith nomination: its not that the man is a flake, it's that he's a non-notable flake. The Amazing Discoveries article, incidentally, got deleted on the grounds of lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem of being based far too much on primary sources, on which I based my delete rationale in the previous AfD, has still not been fixed in this version. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Problems with sourcing. It is difficult to see why this BLP was recreated. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Per Xxanthippe and David Eppstein. give us some reliable sources first, then we'll see again whether the article should be recreated. --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a presupposition and prejudice without any real examination, (i.e. 'hardcore fruit-loop conspiracy theorist pages. Of course, this silence could be down to the Pope acting in collusion with the Illuminati and of course the reverse Vampires..') to say nothing of the rush to delete. But I will work on the article this weekend and we shall see how we can get it resolved. Simbagraphix (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

editorial break[edit]

Keep A quick checking of sources reveals a reasonable start. Outside of Adventism, Veith has made a showing among Creationists. Spectrum magazine has a reputation for being a reliable source. It has addressed some of Veith's ideas. Within Adventist circles, many give credence to his ideas. He is a thought-leader for many. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May we have sources for these claims? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Veith among creationists[edit]

Answers in Genesis, lead by Ken Ham.

Walter J. Veith, Zoology

Creation Ministries International

Professing creation A distinguished zoologist ‘tells it like it is’ about evolution by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati

Not exactly a neutral source. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Reliable sources don't have to be neutral. They need to be removed from the individual. There is no evidence that Veith has created a bias other than the information he stands for. There is no doubt that Veith stands with other Creationists who have found standing here on Wikipedia. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind

On Hovind's blog... "I love Veith’s material except strongly differ on the SDA issue!" See: Kent Hovind's blog

Vieth in Spectrum Magazine[edit]

Spectrum Magazine has a long history of news reporting on the Adventist World. Their work is especially useful here because they keep an arm's length from church control. Observations presented hear are less bias toward the church than most other Adventist magazines.

The articles about Veith are less than flattering. But as mentioned above neutrality is not a criteria for reliability.

Note these:

The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith by Ron Osborn, October 11, 2011

Spectrum and the Christ Child, December 28, 2011.

"Ron Osborn’s recent take on Walter Veith drew thousands of readers and nearly a thousand comments (thus far). "

Seventh-day Adventists and Conspiracy Theories

"Walter Veith is the leading conspiratory voice within Adventism, followed by Bill Hughes and others. Veith has produced hundreds of hours of DVDs that keep his listeners sitting on the edge of the couch. Some viewers are anxious to hear his latest speculations; many are filled with anxiety for the future. Like a drug addiction, the more people view the videos, the more money they spend on these theories."

Note that Veith is the leading conspiratory voice within Adventist which has an annual budget of 50 billion dollars and a world membership of 18 million.

Our Nutty Fringe

"For how many years has Walter Veith been speaking in our churches? And yet the first thing that’s caught the leaders’ attention is his anti-Semitism? The surprise is not that one region finally banned him, but that he has been for years, and continues to be, invited to speak in Seventh-day Adventist churches around the world! Why is that? It’s because a lot of his conspiratorial nonsense isn’t unwelcome among us. Go where the self-supporting folks are gathered, and you’ll find groups who self-identify as Seventh-day Adventists, whose central beliefs intersect ours on the Venn diagram, but with an appended compliment of their own bizarre ideas, from survivalism to radical health extremism to invisible barcodes on our foreheads to the Adventist church itself being Babylon. It shouldn’t escape your notice that we have had far more patience with Walter Veith and his made-up conspiracies than we showed a respected Adventist scholar who questioned the Investigative Judgment by referring to the Bible alone."

These views need to be properly expressed in the article, which is largely uncritical of Veith.TheLongTone (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. How would you like to proceed? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More[edit]

Keep I will work on researching and building up the article and getting the related sources, but as in all things, it will take time.Simbagraphix (talk)
Keep -- I note that he is described as a South African professor. I assume that South African usage of the term professor is similar to that in the UK, rather than to that of USA (which it is the equivalent of lecturer). If so, being a professor is another reason why he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The only ex officio position that qualifies for WP:Prof is #6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. . Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2014 (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 / 06:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Simbagraphix has just recreated Amazing Discoveries. Given that this article has already been deleted because of issues with notability & sourcing and that the recreation relies almost exclusivly on self-published sources, I regard this action as mischievous in the extreme: it certainlt sits poorly beside the statement above about improving sources in the article under discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've already shown cause of being disingenuous, don't go beyond what you already have to add to it. I also created the page, Australian Army during World War I and Tanks in the Australian Army, is this 'mischievous in the extreme' also. IMHO, you are not seeking 'notability & sourcing', but it appears you have another agenda ... Simbagraphix (talk)

Disingenous? where?? I'd appreciate substantiation of that statement, or its withdrawal. The other article is mischeivous because there are clearly notability issues with the article and it would have been wise to have waited before the identical issues with this article were resolved. As for reliable sourcing, I have looked. Without success.TheLongTone (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was noted at the top, so check closer. As for reliable sourcing, this article has more than what you find on a vast majority of articles of persons on Wikipedia, so you have other reasons for seeking deletion...Simbagraphix (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.14.250 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you accuse me of inserting the stuff about antisemitism, which has been in the article from the beginning. As for my reasons, I am from your point of view clearly under the control of the Pope, the Illuminati and Miss Piggy, so there is little point in attempting a rational discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the primary sources cited in this article outweighs the secondary/independent, I was able to find two reliable newspapers sources independent of the subject. One is trivial and the other goes into detail about one of the subject's scientific researches. Trivial and Detailed. The fact that Veith has gotten worthy mentions in two of his country's biggest newspapers may be enough. versace1608 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly in depth coverage, I could whip up as much press coverage for my activities.TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also note that the above editor has been approached by User:Simmbagraphix-see below.TheLongTone (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't have an opinion about the article's notability, however I'll note that it appears Simbagraphix may have tainted this deletion discussion by violating WP:CANVASS with a dozen or so specific requests such as this to editors (who would be inclined to support "keep") to improve the article. While not linking directly to this deletion discussion, the first thing an editor will see on the Walter Veith article is the AfD notice. Isn't this the sort of thing that the Article Rescue Squadron got into trouble with a couple years back? Mojoworker (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know about that. I thought editors were allowed to communicate...Simbagraphix (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, few to none reliable sources. The above-mentioned canvassing, which I received as well, is also very concerning. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 05:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the request for input at the teahouse, and was told that requests such as Simbagraphix request for input are considered legitimate, so long as they don't ask for a vote.Jacona (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that update JaconaFrere as I get numerous requests to assist in articles from other editors and that had never been an issue. As I rarely have any of my articles go through this process this is a bit new to me, any help is appreciated. Thanks Simbagraphix (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The teahouse is wrong, WP:CANVAS is quite clear. Neutrally worded messages to unselected editors are allowed. I don't know whether the editors contacted by Simbagraphix were selected or not, but the message clearly asks people to help keep the article, which certainly is not "neutral". Simbagraphix, communicating with other editors is absolutely allowed and even encouraged, but campaigning is not. Please refrain from doing so in future. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this feels like campaigning, but how can one send messages to "unselected" editors?

Keep There are hundreds of wiki pages about nobodies who just happen to kick a ball down a field or run around some bases. Veith is making a large impact, both good and bad, on many people around the globe. Most people either like him or hate him. Most people either like what he says or hates what he says. Anyone listening to him just one time will form a strong opinion of him one way or another. This is notable. So many non-notable people just coast along trying not to make waves. Veith has a PhD and has taught in universities for decades with tenure. What percentage of the worlds population have PhDs? What percentage of Wikipedia editors have PhDs? I don't understand all the effort being used to try to delete this page when there are hundreds of non-notable pages that really need to be dealt with? --RoyBurtonson (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent I agree: to my mind being a football player is ipso facto to be non notable (and there are not hundreds but possibly hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia article on football players.) The problem with Veith is that he is a highly contentious figure but there are so few truly independant sources that the possiblity of constructing a properly balanced article seems impossible, as well as making his notability questionable. Internet searches are dominated by results from Amazing Discoveries: believe me I have looked quite a long way down the Google hits & tried different search terms but I cannot find anything that can be in any way described as mainstream coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holding a PhD does not remotely make a person notable. The criteria for WP:Prof are far, far higher. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I found several publications by Veith and added to article. Some of them are cited several times in other publications. He was a true Professor with tenure.

None of this makes him notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Agree, I'm no expert on the academic notability criteria but his publising record & cites do not look very impressive: and in any case this is an article based on his supposed notability in another field.TheLongTone (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The article is Walter Veith, not Walter Veith's role as a defined by something else. Veith is either notable, or he is not.Jacona (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the sources, Spectrum is regarded by scholars on Adventism as an excellent source (see for example the affirmation by Seeking a Sanctuary), and I believe it can fairly be described as independent. (Although with the expansion of their online content - and thus possibly more non-rigorous material - it may be increasingly necessary to discern based on the individual author also). Some sources are self-published. Others like from creationist organisations or the Adventist Review have value IMO but may do little for notability. (I think the tone/neutrality is good, it's a little negative but that would simply reflect the view of authoritative sources. But neutrality is not notability, of course.) Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Smith, 5th Viscount Hambleden[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Viscount who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely to be notable per WP:N. Being the partner of Frida Lyngstad of ABBA does not make him notable in itself, but reliable sources are certainly available for him. Please note also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Having a personal life (I don't see any other info in that page) is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Viscount Hambleden. He does not appear to have done anything apart from provide some content for gossip columnists. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2014 (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 / 05:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still say Merge to Viscount Hambleden. Keep is an alternative. I do not care which. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Curzon, 4th Viscount Scarsdale[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Viscount who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely to be notable per WP:N. The sources we have for the page so far are generally good but do not cover all the information given on the page. Please note also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Viscount Scarsdale. I seen nothing notable in his career to justify a substantive article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2014 (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 / 05:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still say merge but no objection to keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 03:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Ward, 5th Earl of Dudley[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earl of Dudley (if not kept). I suspect that he is a rich man, despite the sale many years ago of the Dudley estates. However, he does not appear to ahve done much. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2014 (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 / 05:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to Keep if others think so. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As members of the higher nobility in a country where such nobility has an active legal status, they're notable . when they were legislators it was automatic under WP:POLITICIAN, but it makes sense even now when when they are not. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments elsewhere on similar AfDs: earls are fairly high up in the peerage. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Russell, 6th Earl Russell[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Likely to be notable. All the same, someone should produce some reliable sources for this page, for now there are none at all. Moonraker (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, NB the view of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Activist activity is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am dubious of the merits of having articles on all peers. Notability is not inherited. Holding a title will be one pointer towards notablility and may help in a doubtful case, but if there is no estate; no mansion; and an ordinary job, I doubt we should keep man article. In this case, apart from the title, he would clearly be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2014 (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 / 05:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note — please constrain arguments to policy and guideline rationales. In its current form, for example, it is also in danger of violating the policy of verifiability. --slakr^\ talk / 05:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As members of the higher nobility in a country where such nobility has an active legal status, they're notable . when they were legislators it was automatic under WP:POLITICIAN, but it makes sense even now when when they are not. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like DGG stated, nobility in the UK have an active legal status and most peers have articles on them. I would keep as to not break succession, but references need to be added. --PDX er1 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments elsewhere on similar AfDs: earls are fairly high up in the peerage. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Chichester, 8th Marquess of Donegall[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Marquess in the Peerage of Ireland Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete listings can be completed with lists, they don't require articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the title Marquess of Donegall. Who's Who describes his occupation as "farmer". This may be on a large scale, but he is probably nonetheless NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Please constrain arguments to policy and guideline-based rationales.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 05:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still say merge but no objection to keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As members of the higher nobility in a country where such nobility has an active legal status, they're notable . when they were legislators it was automatic under WP:POLITICIAN, but it makes sense even now when when they are not. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Owusu-Bonsu[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me to say what does notability mean to you User talk:reddogsix? She's notable in Ghana and beyond especially for her song "Uncle Obama". A simple Google should proves right. She was even interviewed by the CNN. So what else shows she's not notable? Therefore this article shouldn't be deleted. Regards →Enock4seth ^(talk) 21:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You have not provided references to the article that support your claim of notability. I can say the moon is made of cream cheese, but without proof all I have done is make an unverifiable statement. All you need to do is add [{WP:IS|independent]], verifiable, non-trivial references to the article that supports WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she is definitely notable. Her brother is a famous singer/rapper, and she herself is very known in Ghana, she is TV host in Ghana and gets a lot of Media coverage around the World (i.e. the United States, the U.K., Switzerland, and of course all over Africa through dish network (Channel O, MTV Africa etc.). Sister Deborah is known and is a celebrity in West Africa. She is known as Sister Deborah as a vocalist, Deborah Vanessa or simply Deborah as a TV Talkshow host and the article should not be deleted in my opinion. (Subzzee (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - No one has provided any non-trivial support for her notability. As far as her brother and sister's notability, notability is not inherited so their assumed notability is irrelevant. reddogsix (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links to prove that she is known:

Article and clip of Sister Deborah on CNN
Ghanaian news article pertaining to comments made by Sister Deborah
Deborah Vanessa on Modern Ghana
Sister Deborah on the MTV Base Official Top 10 charts

Comment - Getting an article in Wikipedia is not about being "known" or being popular. Articles must be supported by indpendent, verifable, non-trivial secondary sources. The first article above is a brief mention, the second is a brief mention of her TV show., the third is might pass as support, but the last is a brief mention and a link to a primary source.reddogsix (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dog at this point I feel you are being difficult, Ghana is a country of 25 million people, quite a large population, Sister Deborah is not only a recording artist who is known across Africa and popular figure in her native land, she hosts one of if not the most popular talk show in the country. Ask any Ghanaian who she is. I dug those references up in 5 minutes. If you need me to dig up the entire internet to prove that this woman is a celebrity in her native country and worthy of an article on Wikipedia, I can do that as well. But Sister Deborah is known for a) Her fashion line first and foremost. b) Her music career. c) Her role in television and Ghanaian popular culture (ie.e radio, hosting events etc.) one could argue that her brother Wanlov the Kubolor is more famous then her. But truth of the matter is she is more mainstream and more popular then her brother in West Africa, particularly for her role in Ghanaian fashion. Having been involved in high profile Fashion shows across the Globe from New York City to Japan (Subzzee (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

My biggest issue is the name. Her full name is Deborah Vanessa Owusu-Bonsu, as a Talkshow host she most known as Deborah Vanessa, and as a singer she is known as Sister Deborah. The article goes by Deborah Owusu Bonsu, which is in fact her real name, but I believe she is more known by her stage name Sister Deborah, or as Deborah Vanessa, I guess it depends on the context given. Deborah Owusu-Bonsu is her real name so I guess it is correct after all. (Subzzee (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

No opinion on keep or delete, but just wanted to point out that the actual name of the article is only a minor issue. Figure out which is the canonical name, and call the article that. Then, take all the other possibilities (i.e. strings a user might type into a search box) and make them all redirects to the canonical one. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Allow me to offer a similar individual who might currently be more nation-centric as well: Tyra Banks. Banks is more internationally notable, but for AfD's sake, her article has 56 references, detailing almost every section and sentence. Here, we have a section with a list that has not one source. How does the random visitor know that she was a runway model for [insert company name]? — Wylie pedia 13:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Don't get me wrong the article needs a lot of work and a lot more references as well. As it stands now it looks more like a curriculum vitae then a biographical article suitable for Wikipedia. So on that note I completely agree, this article needs a lot of improvement. But I don't think it needs to be deleted. Deborah is in fact well known in Ghana. She is a celebrity who is seen on billboards around Accra advertising various products, and is worthy of an article on Wikipedia in my opinion. (Subzzee (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - "Real-World" notability (popularity) does not equal notability. Just because she is "well known" in Ghana or appears on billboards is not a reason for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seems I will have to dig up the internet for you then, you clearly don't have an understanding of who she is. I also don't believe you have an understanding of who is and who isn't a celebrity in Ghana, or even what for. I don't think you know what you are dealing with here, because if you had ever spent significant time in Ghana, or any country in West Africa for that matter, you would know who she is and understand why she deserves to have an article on Wikipedia. She is a Fashion designer/Vocalist who has singles in the charts in more then one country, and is the host of one of the most popular television shows in the country. Furthermore this is the English Wikipedia, which happens to also be the national language of Ghana, a country in which Sister Deborah is well known and respected. I will add more articles to further prove her notability (although I am a bit surprised that you don't consider CNN or MTV as credible sources proving her notability) (Subzzee (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Please read WP:42. reddogsix (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You act like that would be hard to find. I am at work now, but a bit later I will give you the references you asked for. (Subzzee (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Please don't assume to read my mind or my actions, providing references is not my WP:BURDEN. reddogsix (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2014 (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 / 05:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note — Please constrain arguments to policy and guideline-based rationales. The primary challenge to this article is based on the general notability guideline (GNG) and the specific notability guidelines for actors and actresses. Arguments should help demonstrate how the subject meets (or does not meet) those guidelines (and/or various other policies, if applicable). --slakr^\ talk / 05:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Foddit[edit]

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

A self-published 23-page ebook. Only links that I could find was on eBay and Amazon. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty obviously non-notable. I can't find a single source out there that isn't primary or a "junk" hit for something unrelated to the work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find a single thing. Silver seren^C 04:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own searches came up empty. Stalwart111 09:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Riemer[edit]

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

County-level councillor without enough properly sourced evidence of notability to get him past WP:POLITICIAN; the lowest level of office at which people become "entitled" to an article is the state legislature, not a county council. Delete unless a much better article can be written than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - available coverage is extremely local like this and this. Exactly what you'd expect for a local councillor - local coverage in local papers. It's coverage in papers like the Washington Post but those are his local papers and in this instance they are covering very local politics, rather than their usual national or international fare. Stalwart111 09:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politician who lost in the run for an office that if he had won would still not have made him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, he lost once, ran again and won the second time. So he is an actual officeholder, and not just an unsuccessful candidate — but you are correct that the office he holds isn't notable enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunwei[edit]

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

Notability issues — billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources discussing this software to any extent, reliable or not. Silver seren^C 04:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search, for sunwei and sanwei, as it is spelled both ways in article, did not reveal any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for '(Sunwei or "Sun wei") proxy' and also "sunwei-proxy.tk" got so few hits that I'm left wondering if this article is a fake. There's no evidence of notability. File:Sunwei-windows.png, File:Sunwei-windows-fa.png, File:Sunwei Logo S.png and File:Sunwei Logo L (Black).png were uploaded by a user with the claim "own work." A user with the same name created the article that this AFD is about. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. ukexpat (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fallout (series). (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 01:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New California Republic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think the New California Republic is really notable/recognizable beyond the Fallout community like The Master or Dogmeat, or even some fan-fictions based on the franchise itself (really sad, huh?), and fails WP:GNG. Being a Legion and an Enclave supporter, I'm staying neutral on this one. Citation Needed | Talk 11:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered a merge redirect to the series article?--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Fallout: New Vegas~~ Fallout (series), which really could have been done without an AfD. Silverseren^C 04:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why Fallout: New Vegas? A better target would be Fallout (series). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true. Silver seren^C 19:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Silverseren/NRP: doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG from what I can tell. ansh666 05:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The original rationale for deletion was that it this article duplicates an existing article, Satra Ko shadi Hai. Since that article has been turned into a redirect to this one by the nominator, there is no remaining argument for deletion (WP:SK#1). If the nominator wishes to continue to pursue deletion, they may speedily renominate with a new reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satra Ko Shaadi Hai[edit]

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

A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic : Satra Ko shadi Hai Abhinav (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that Satra Ko shadi Hai has been turned into a redirect. This seems to solve the problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Woods[edit]

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

Subject is a local sports media personality. Insufficiently notable as evidenced by the lack of extensive coverage outside of local media sources. Drm310 (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable only if being a "2014 Legends of Curling Inductee" shows notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NMEDIA, notability for a television or radio personality has to extend demonstrably beyond the bounds of a single midsized media market to qualify for a Wikipedia article. (Even in a major metropolitan market, in fact, a TV sportscaster associated exclusively with a local station still wouldn't automatically be entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist.) In addition, it also bears mention that there's a possible WP:COI here, as the article was created by User:Nikwoods. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin James Maher[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. What happened here is that an editor with no prior contribution history added the AFD template to this article and then walked away without completing the nomination process, following which a different editor filled out the nomination form with a personal attack on the templater instead of just removing the tag. (The latter editor, for the record, is an WP:SPA who's never made a single edit to Wikipedia that didn't directly pertain to Maher or his band — so there's the possibility of a WP:COI violation here as well.) After reviewing the situation, however, I'm opting to complete the proper nomination process instead of just quashing the whole thing, as there is a valid reason why Wikipedia should consider deleting or redirecting this instead of leaving it as a standalone article: specifically, the article does not actually make a strong or well-referenced claim that he actually passes WP:NMUSIC — he's a musician who's notable primarily for his work in a band, and does not have enough coverage as an independent topic to really merit anything more than a redirect to the band. The only sources that have been added here at all are ones which mention his name in passing, but which are fundamentally about Louise Burns rather than Maher — and that fails to constitute substantive coverage of Maher. Probably the best course of action here would be a redirect to Fake Shark – Real Zombie!, although of course I'd be happy to withdraw this if the sourcing and notability claim can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep – I've added citations to articles in Exclaim and the Leader-Post. Maher has a bit of notability separate from his band: film composing, and songwriting-producing for Carly Rae Jepsen and Kat von D. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The following sources indicate that this subject passes WP:BASIC:

Leader-Post
Metro
Exclaim
Exclaim
Georgia Straight

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to withdraw this if some of those sources actually started finding their way into the article, instead of just getting listed here. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat: Respectfully, please read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, quality in the here and now does matter. It would take a ridiculous amount of time and wasted energy to actually delve into an extended philosophical argument about the relative merits of immediatism vs. eventualism — whereas it would take, what, a whole five to ten minutes for somebody to just buckle down and toss those five links into the article right away? Minimal effort for maximum payoff — I don't think it's that unreasonable. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat: So why not do it yourself then? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're the one who wants the article to be kept and I'm not? Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Dennis (Irish footballer)[edit]

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

PROD contested with the following reason "I'm deeply disturbed that someone would take a 7-year old article about a long-term player, who appears to have been the leading scorer on his team during the pre-war era. Inconceivable that if one had access to the media of the time that meet WP:GNG)" - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.. non-notable player, who never played in a fully pro league. JMHamo (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does anyone have any perspective on what the heck [36] is? I don't for one second suggest it's evidence of notability. If anything, I'm suspicious that something odd is up. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and then this leads to [37] almost $100 with shipping and fees. Nfitz (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a commercial venture that takes Wikipedia articles, prints them up, and sells them as "books" to suckers. The best known example is Books LLC. Of course, the value of such trash is zero for establishing notability. Maybe less than zero. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That much is obvious. Is there more to it than though? That something has been done with Wiki material is one thing. Is there any indication that the material itself has been trumped up to allow this to be done? Nfitz (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He played for the Bohemians, a club in the senior Irish League (and a founder member of it). This is now a professional club, and if it was not then, becasue no Irish clubs were fully professional, I do not think it ought to make any differnece. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: The League of Ireland is not on the list of fully professional football leagues according to WikiProject Football. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on the basis that the senior league of any sport in any country is entitled to have some articles. However, I do not claim to be a football expert. We are dealing with a relatively distnat period, and should not expect the criteria applicable to the presnet to be applied rigorously to periods when there was much less money about. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I very much agree with you, and think we spend far too much time deleting non-current historic players, who aren't easy to verify, I'm not sure this the hill to die on. It's hard to find much mention of him at all (let alone anything establishing notability), which is surprising, given the amount of books from that period that Google has digitized. There's likely a better case to be made for some of the many other Irish players currently up for deletion. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article claims that Dennis also played for Port Vale, but this is not backed up by Michael Joyce's book "Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939", so if he was ever on the club's books, he never played in the Football League, so no WP:NFOOTY pass there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that ChrisTheDude JMHamo (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While generally I believe that the articles of long-standing semi-professional Irish footballers with lots of media coverage should stand, I'm shocked at how little mention I can find of this particular player. While it's difficult to find articles relating to 2000s, 1990s, 1980s, etc. Irish players, because of a lack of availability of newspaper archives, a player from this far back should have at least some brief mention that would show up in a Google Book search, and I'm finding virtually squat. Whether this speaks to the unnotability of the player, the unnotabilty of Bohemians in the 1920s, the unnotability of football in Ireland in that period, or digitized Irish material for that period, I don't know. Coupled with the inaccuracy of the Port Vale information, and the bizarre con going on involving this player, and a lack of verification of much of the other information, then I'm not comfortable with this article being here. If someone can provide any independent documentation of this player's achievement, I'll happily remove my vote. Nfitz (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago Andrade[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was: "This article is completely unsourced, the subject probably fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG, and the article was written by an editor with a name remarkably similar to the name of the subject, creating a likely WP:COI issue." The only significant contributor to the article removed the PROD and added some references, but only one of these even mentions the subject of the article and still does not indicate any level of notability. – Pee Jay 00:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the FFU website has no record of this person playing for Tavriya Simferopol's senior squad. As the nominator noted, the other references in the article either don't mention this player or give any indication of notability. The entire article is a likely hoax but at best is about a non-notable footballer. Jogurney (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. As Jogurney says, this is either a hoax or a non-notable player - either way we don't want it here. Giant Snowman 09:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the edit history, it appears that Thiago Andrade wrote it himself. And credit to him, it's better presented, detailed, and referenced than many, if not most, articles for football players. I'd suggest moving it to his namespace if he desires. Though note: university teams are not a "senior career". Nfitz (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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