Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 May	30 May >

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. This does not preclude someone from rewriting the article if desired. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teet Kask

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

This article's proposed deletion was contested, but it lacks reliable third-party references that would justify its inclusion. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are in Estonian, but there's no shortage of coverage e.g.[1][2][3][4][5] Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the Estonian language can fix this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [6], [7], [8], [9]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The subject may or may not be notable, however, neither the current article or sources in there indicate that. As it is atm, the article is a typical COI-edited (editors such as Brorbjork (bjork is birch in Swedish, Kask in Estonian), K.a.s.k.project, Teet Kask) vanity article relying on self-published sources (Youtube channel, Facebook page). I would support keeping the article if it is stubbed or rewritten from scratch using proper sources and neutral point of view. --Sander Säde 21:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Mooney

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

Article written by a single purpose account and is, more or less, a promotional CV of this visual artist. I'm not seeing much at all in the form of substantive, reliable media coverage and he is described as 'new' or 'emerging' where he is mentioned. Currently fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Sionk (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GoldenRing (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Additionally, none of the exhibition venues in the long list are particularly notable.--Theredproject (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice to a merge discussion j⚛e decker ^talk 02:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ischiopagi

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

Having read the criteria for deletion of Wikipedia, I do not find this article to be needed, especially when we can summarize the entire article in a few sentences on the conjoined twins page. We do not need individual pages on each type of conjoined twinning, when we have the information on a broader page. The Awkward Axolotl (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree that the information in this article could be summarized in a few sentences. Even if it could, the appropriate outcome would not be delete but merge. GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the Classification system can be merged into the Conjoined twins article; however, the remainder of the article is all already in the latter and doesn't need to have its own. We already have Prognosis, Embryology, Treatment, etc. in Conjoined twins; it isn't only applicable to Ischiopagi and the article speaks of conjoined twins in general. The Awkward Axolotl (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I also neglected to add that we could add several of the details from the aforementioned sections into Conjoined twins, but I stand by my original response.The Awkward Axolotl (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, no convincing argument for deletion. Obviously it is a sub-topic from Conjoined twins, but as far as we have enough things to say about it a separate article is perfectly valid. Cavarrone 07:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument for deleting it was that the article is redundant when the necessary information can be summarized in Conjoined twins - having said that and read what GoldenRing had to say, I now believe that we could merge the necessary information from Ischiopagi into the Ischiopagus section of Types of Conjoined Twins in the CT article. The majority of this information does not apply solely to Ischiopagi but to all conjoined twins - if we remove that, then the article becomes incredibly small and could then be merged into Conjoined twins. The Awkward Axolotl (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Should have been a merger proposal instead. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Schalke_04#Players. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Schalke 04 players

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

Unsourced and seemingly indiscriminate list of football players. Lacks context and has no supporting prose. Fails WP:LISTN. - Mr X 20:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It has no context. At least a lead paragraph should be added because this article makes little sense to an unknowing reader. Piguy101 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. There is a list on the main article FC Schalke 04#Players with the current squad and notable former players. The rest is served by Category:FC Schalke 04 players. --Ben Ben (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant per Ben Ben. GoldenRing (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - such lists are not redundant if created properly, and many are FLs - see for example List of Birmingham City F.C. players. This one, however, has no discernable inclusion criteria, so just seems to be a laundry list of random players. Maybe nuke and start over if someone feels like creating a version which does have proper inclusion criteria.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A-1. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A1 does not apply Agathoclea (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per BenBen. No inclusion criteria means this can only merely duplicate the category link already in place in the club article. Fenix down (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schalke_04#Players, can later be standalone again if expanded into a proper article. I see no reason to delete. —Kusma (t·c) 13:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Kusma, can be resurrected if/when someone can be bothered to bring it up to scratch. Giant Snowman 18:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Molinaro

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

A well meaning editor has created this article without anyone explaining to him or her the notability issue. All sources in the article as it stands are self-written, passing mentions, and so on. He does have a book on NYT and other bestseller lists, but that's not enough. I've encouraged the creating editor to find appropriate sources and pointed him/her to his debate.

See Template:Did you know nominations/Vince Molinaro. EEng (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed most of the article so obviously I vote Keep. It seems to me that Dr. Molinaro is a notable author because his book, published by a fairly reputable publisher, John Wiley & Sons, was on the New York Times Bestseller list. ~~But if you choose to delete it, please move it back into my user space/sandbox at User:Woz2/Vince Molinaro. I'll work on it when I can.~~ Or leave it in place with a {{Notability}} tag. Thank you. Woz2 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Delete 71.174.67.162 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:CONSENSUS and think about how inappropriate your post just above is. No, it's not obvious that you "vote" keep, because (a) this isn't a vote, it's a discussion which will continue to the point at which it's clear that most of us agree on the right answer, and (b) you're supposed to be forming an opinion based on your best attempt to understand applicable guidelines and apply them to this situation. It's already been pointed out to you (at the article Talk page linked above) that writing a bestselling book does not make a person notable -- the article is about this man, not his book, so for notability we need sources about him, not how well his book sold. Yet here you come repeating the same argument as before. You should be commenting on how you think applicable guidelines apply to the facts here, not thinking of yourself as in some kind of tug-of-war where each side pulls the hardest until someone trips and falls. I repeat, for the last time, that if you want to see this article kept, go find sources making substantial comment about the man himself. I've tried and found nothing. An editor posting below has tried, and found nothing. You, for obvious reasons, may succeed where we have failed. So please focus on that or I'm afraid all your effort will be wasted, which would really be too bad. EEng (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. If it helps put things in perspective, I just noticed that John Grisham's (!) notability is being questioned, because thought he's sold a lot of books and a lot has been written about them, apparently not much has been written about him. So many or most of his books may be notable (and therefore warrant an article on WP) but he may not be. Actually, I suspect that in the end someone will find some NYT or New Yorker profiles of him, etc., and he will turn out to satisfy notability, but again, the fact that it's being questioned should put things in perspective for you.[reply]

EEng, Maybe it's the nature of text-based communication, but I'm getting the sense both here and at the DYK that I've inadvertently written something that has annoyed you and that this whole thing isn't about the article at all, but about your annoyance at me personally. If this is so, I apologize for annoying you. I didn't mean to.Woz2 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that annoys me is that you're spending a lot of time talking about everything other than finding sources that will establish notability and save this article which you created, which is the only thing that matters here. EEng (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already invested a lot of time in it. I think the article is worth keeping as it is. Woz2 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As EEng has explained, we are looking for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. For books, this requirement is often met by bona fide independent reviews in newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, and the like. Blurbs on the cover of the book don't count because they're not independent. NYT bestsellers will usually (but not always) get some reviews; but my quick look through some Google results didn't come up with any such reviews, not even at Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. To be sure there's no confusion, the question here is notability of the author, not the book, so reviews of the book won't really help here either unless (as reviews sometimes do) they go into substantial background about the author. EEng (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:AUTHOR section 3: Reliable sources referencing an author's work bestow notability on the author. Woz2 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No -- you're cherrypicking individual words from the guideline, which actually says

3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

We need multiple ... independent ... articles or reviews discussing Molinaro's work. Not "referencing". EEng (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any cherry picking at all. And frankly I am not sure what it is that you are driving at. Are you suggesting that a best selling author is NOT notable? If so I can only say that your position is inconsistent with both common sense and longstanding consensus within the community with respect to interpretation of section 3 of WP:AUTHOR. Are you suggesting that the subject IS NOT in fact a best selling author? I believe that this notability conferring assertion is incontrovertibly backed by reliable, independent and verifiable sources. Unless I am somehow misunderstanding your position, always a possibility and I welcome correction, your repeated insistence on more sources would seem to be suggesting that the sky is not blue. More sources are ALWAYS desirable. But in this case they are not essential, as the subject's notability is clear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're so confused it's almost like you're trying to be funny. When a book is a bestseller, that doesn't even make that book notable -- see WP:BKCRIT where, you'll note, "being a bestseller" is no part of the criteria. Instead, as usual, there have to be multiple independent sources etc etc.

And even if one of Molinaro's books was notable, that doesn't make him notable, because WP:NOTINHERITED. The test for his notability is (sigh) multiple, independent ... (shall I go on?) about him.

You've contradicted yourself again. First you said you wanted sources about him, then sources "discussing Molinaro's work", now you're back to him. The "that" clause of AUTHOR3 clearly means "work that has been..." not "author that has been...". Notability of the work makes the author notable. And being in the New York Times makes the work notable. Woz2 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be responding further since it's clear the result will be delete. EEng (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bye. Woz2 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have explained, the primary criterion for notability is significant coverage in secondary sources. I'm not seeing that, but if you can find independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of his life or career, then please bring them forward and I'll gladly change this to keep. TBH, he seems like the sort of person who ought to have such coverage but doesn't. GoldenRing (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is the author of a best selling book, a fact that appears to be reliably sourced. IMO this would seem to satisfy section 3 of WP:AUTHOR. Additional RS sources would be nice though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reason given above by Ad Orientem. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Changed to delete - ~~passes WP:GNG by way of sourcing, and WP:AUTHOR by way of a Times bestseller. We almost always keep bestselling authors, unless their article is so spammy as to be total crap.~~ Bearian (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've always respected your judgment, so maybe I'm having a senior moment. Can you point me to something supporting "We almost always keep bestselling authors"? (I can't find it in the link you give.) My recollection is firmly the opposite e.g. a bestselling fad diet book might be notable, but even if it is, its nobody author about whom nothing has been written other than promotional blurb, can at the same time be non-notable -- and as I said above, WP:BKCRIT, quite strikingly, doesn't mention "bestseller" as a notability criterion for a book (forget its author), and similarly WP:AUTHOR says nothing about bestsellers either. I'll be happy to be corrected on this. In the meantime, take a closer look at the sourcing -- can you point to even one source with the kind of coverage required? EEng (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally keep authors based on best seller status. There have been a couple long consensus discussions about this over the years. It's really only a gauge to keep looking for independent secondary sources. We normally keep authors based on book reviews, per WP:AUTHOR. A best seller will usually have book reviews in reliable sources. -- GreenC 01:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One reason we don't rely on Best seller lists is it's possible (and common) to simply buy your way onto the list. Not to make any specific accusations but "business leadership solutions" are typical of the type. One way you can tell is if the book reached a high mark on the best seller list (#4 in this case) and then disappear after a single week. It means there was possibly a bulk-buy to get on the list. -- GreenC 01:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, "I see," said the blind man. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the sources present, I'm seeing:

Seven articles/books written by Molinaro (or books containing articles/chapters written by him) - obvious primary sources.
His bio at his workplace - another non-independent, primary source.
Three links to best-seller lists - okay for establishing that the book was on the list, but not significant coverage.
A link to an awards list - again, fine for establishing that he was given the award, but not significant coverage.
Five articles about other things/people, containing canned statements from Molinaro - again, not significant, independent coverage of him.

So I'm not seeing notability established in secondary sources, contrary to some claims above, either of him or of his book. GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The best-seller status means little other than to keep looking for book reviews, which I did. It's odd this was a best-seller with no book reviews. -- GreenC 13:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom, I added some hits from the Highbeam teaser page. If anyone has an account that can get past the pay wall, they could flesh them out. They don't show up on Google. One is from 2005 from a now defunct magazine that only has a web archive from 2009 on. The T+D one appears to be a book review by the editor, Paula Ketter. HTH. 71.174.67.162 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be pointed out that the IP is [10] is Woz2, who seems to have given up his account. I wouldn't call this sockpuppetry, however. EEng (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried and I tried, but like you I just couldn't look away from this tragic postlude to my Wikipedia career. What did you think of Paula Ketter's T+D book review, by the way. 71.174.67.162 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I know it's hard not to feel shitty about having an article deleted, but I guarantee you that if you turn to other editing this will all be a distant memory before you know it. Someone will be happy to un-vanish you. EEng (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not leaving because of the article. What did you think of Paula Ketter's T+D book review, by the way? 71.174.67.162 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good source reliability wise but T&D is a specialty source so doesn't have a lot of readers, and it is only one review. Normally for book reviews we need a handful or so to show notability, the number depending on the quality of the sources and length of reviews. -- GreenC 13:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Normally" makes it sound like the standard is universally applied. Just for giggles, I clicked on the "random article" link. The first two times, the articles were better than mine but the third (Louis Jaque also Canadian as it happens, but a painter) has no citations at all!71.174.67.162 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's "normal" because WP:AUTHOR says "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" .. one book review is not "multiple". How many multiple depends on what people thing is enough to establish notability, which is a function of quality and reach of sources. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- GreenC 16:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fail of WP:BIO. jps (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bus routes in London#400–499. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 414

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

There was an AfD on this less than six months ago. Is it any more notable than before? Laun chba ller 18:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: the article should probably have been reverted to its redirect, but that's unfortunately been forestalled by this nomination, which I hope turns into a SNOW closure. The current article is smaller than the one that was redirected with much of its text taken from that one, and all four of its citations are also from that version, so it's at least as lacking in notability as its predecessor, if not more so. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Ordinary bus route.TheLongTone (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW close as a Redirect—there is insufficient change from the last AfD, so the previous result should be sustained. Imzadi 1979 → 03:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When most of the articles have been redirected to the list, will this part of the list of UK bus routes be deleted as the others were? Peter James (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus at AfD has been to redirect titles like this to a list, then there is consensus that the list should exist and so it should not be deleted without explicit consensus. Buses in London are qualitatively different to buses in almost every other part of the UK and so the arguments applied to one do not automatically apply to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It depends on the reason for redirecting to the list. If it's lack of notability, as is the case with many fictional characters or locations, these have been redirected to the lists and then the lists deleted. Even if there's consensus that the content should exist, but that a list or combined article may be a better way of presenting the information, I'm not sure (the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in China is an example). The situation with buses in London appears to be because of different views of participants in the Buses and London WikiProjects; listing the least notable London routes but not the more notable routes in other places (whether in the UK or elsewhere) may be an example of systemic bias. Peter James (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that List of London bus routes should not exist then you should AfD it. That said, it has been kept twice.--Laun chba ller 17:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on that, I just think that topics should be structured with as little bias as possible (and unfortunately it's inevitable that there will still be some if these lists exist at all, because verifiability may be a problem). With the AFD process, its possible that (for example) in a list split alphabetically, or by year, some pages could be kept and others deleted. If "List of UK bus routes" is created maybe this could be merged into it. Peter James (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A list of UK bus routes would be unwieldy and arguably indiscriminate as there is no central organisation or single authority for the whole of the UK. In contrast, bus routes in London are trivially verifiable both individually and as a set as they are all regulated by Transport for London. Additionally there have been books written about buses in London as a whole and about some routes individually (I haven't looked to see if the 414 is among those), with some routes dating back over a century. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know some routes had been written about individually. The 414 certainly hasn't been because it is too recent a route but care to give examples of routes that have?--Laun chba ller 09:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't provide any examples off the top of my head unfortunately, but I recall some were listed in one of the previous discussions where bus routes in London were brought up (there have been many though and I can't remember where or when it was). I'll ask the question of an email group about public transport in London that I'm part of which is frequented by many bus enthusiasts though (rail based transport is more my thing). Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overnight two people have independently mentioned route 84 (which runs to St Albans). I've tried finding something on google books but Wikipedia and Wiki-sourced books are flooding the search results more than I have time to try and filter out at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is one of a veritable flood of reinstated from redirect (and somewhat re-edited) bus-route articles by Ibsiadkgneoeb in the past few days. Route 414 was the first, and had an edit summary of "new article"; all the subsequent restorations (starting June 1) merely say "copy edit", which is not accurate for a restoration: routes 295, 91, 345, 490, 430, 235, 344, 319, 90, 46, 124, 474, 425, 147, 85, 119, 200, 32, 332, 316, 21, 242, H28, 333, 423, 145, 181, 225, 199, and 273. (I've spot-checked these, and there may be an expansion or two in there, but all the ones I checked were indeed restorations.) Notability remains dubious, and I've just reverted 199, as the text and sourcing is much the same as the previous version, which was reverted due to lack of notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I do acknowledge that some of these articles are comparatively small when compared to like articles, I find it frustrating when in bus operator articles such as Arriva London, Tower Transit etc where routes are wikilinked, that many default to the List of London bus routes article which offers little info above listing the route, its operator and destination. Yes the older routes have more to say and are likely to have a greater audience, but shouldn't we be seeking to divulge as much info as possible, within reason? I think it would be an overkill to have separate articles for individual school routes, or if an article can't offer anything more than what is covered in the List of London bus routes article.

No I did not seek consensus, but with the exception of this article, all others copyedited were redirected by two long since retired editors on the basis that no verifiable cites could be found, no consensus cycle ever being gone through. Only articles with cites have been reintroduced, if none could be found I have left. While I have used the previous edits as a base, have sought to beef up and verify rather than just perform straight reinstates. End result is some are a bit larger, some a bit smaller. Some of the articles are now much broader and compliant than like articles that have hitherto not been challenged. Route 436 for example was introduced at the same time as the 414, has had one change in vehicle type. Some routes by their nature see more change than others. Some routes still operate more or less as they did in the 1950s while other like route 425 have involved 3 operators in less than 6 years.

An alternative would be to add a history section for each route in the List of London bus routes, but I imagine it would become unwieldy considering it is already 165k.

While some of the articles particularly for the newer routes are relatively small and with little to be said at this stage, it does lay a foundation for future editors after the current generation of editors leave the Wiki building, who may not have access to some of the offline cites. In fifty years, the 414 may have had six operators, eight vehicle types and other events that would justify a stand alone article without question. I would have thought best if the article be built up in 'real time' when the cite and knowledge pool is at its peak, rather than retrospectively when this has diminished. Ibsiadkgneoeb (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Pokemon splits into (1-100), (101-200) etcetera. If we did what you're suggesting and model it after List of night buses in London, I'd say that's a very good idea.--Laun chba ller 15:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ibsiadkgneoeb, it comes down to notability, and that means mention in third-party reliable sources (bus company websites or press releases don't count), not any old cite. 199, the one I reverted, had a single citation, nowhere near enough even if it is reliable (and I couldn't find an "About" page to see what I could determine about them, though a URL that includes "londonbusesbyadam" naturally causes some concern). The articles I've looked at just don't qualify as notable. We don't add non-notable articles here at Wikipedia because they may someday become notable, we wait until they are notable to add them. And if they are notable, that sort of sourcing will be there. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "londonbusesbyadam.zenfelio.com"? I once had a citation from that source removed from an article by CourtneyBonnick, who later confirmed that it is not a reliable source.--Laun chba ller 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as above to List of London bus routes. Despite having a history, it really isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Wait until the Queen goes on it, then it's notable! aycliffe^talk 15:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 real reason given for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerty MacDowell

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

I genuinely do not know whether this sort of article belongs on Wikipedia. Longwayround (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure how your own ignorance equates to an article being deleted. Maybe you could cite a policy this doesn't meet? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe WP:BKD: "[W]hile a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Exceptions do, of course, exist—especially in the case of very famous books." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, if this was an attempt to nominate an article about an obscure character from an unnoticed novel, the shot has gone a bit wide. I'm sure more has been written about Hamlet (I mean the character, not the play) but the character of Gerty MacDowell has been the subject of masses and masses of literary (and legal![11]) analysis. It would have been good to have clicked some of the "find sources" so conveniently provided above. The dreadful shame is that this article doesn't give a clue about any of this. Mmm. Thincat (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Malik, for assuming good faith in my proposed deletion. There appear to be pages for a lot of characters from the book. Would I be right in thinking that each is deserving of an article? Longwayround (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, read WP:BEFORE. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For something as canonical, and as heavily studied, as Ulysses, it's likely that (nearly) every character could have an article. However, many of the articles in Category:Ulysses (novel) characters seem to be as brief this one. As an editorial decision, we could decide to merge and redirect the very stubby articles to List of Ulysses characters (which is currently just a naked list of names, without context or discussion), until there's too much content about a particular character to fit in the list. Either way, this wouldn't be deleted at AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Ulysses characters. It's an important enough novel that there is probably something we can write on every character, however this kind of rather brief summary would be better incorporated into a list of minor characters. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Topic is notable, just the article needs work. 1292simon (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Project Number G18

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

No evidence this projected design ever existed, google searches turn up nothing more than the echo chamber of forum postings (some of which reference this page as prompting the discussions) and an online video game that probably originated the topic. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion no evidence of existence in PRS. Irondome (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion for a non-notable concept. Tupsumato (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article massively fails NRV. I am unable to find anything at all on this topic and have serious doubts the subject existed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Doing some further digging...while this article only existed since January, the G18 as the 'successor project' was added to the Unryu-class article in this edit in February 2011. I'm not willing to call this a hoax, but I am willing to say it's unconfirmable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Parsecboy: Given the date of the above addition to the Unryu-class article, vis-a-vis the dates for World of Warships, I don't think the ship came from the game. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943) per discussion below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Bushranger. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A google search for "G18 空母" generally gives blog and forum posts, with nothing useful. An article on the Japanese Wikipedia exists at ja:G18 (空母), however I cannot verify the references. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Japanese Wikipedia didn't delete this, and there should be records of this somewhere, maybe not on the internet. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact an article was not deleted on another Wikipedia is irrelevant to whether or not it should be kept in this one. That said, the sources in the Japanese article may be helpful here. According to Google Translate, the Romanisations are Fújǐng jìngfū zhùzuò jí dì qī juàn `rìběn kōngmǔ wùyǔ'(guāng rén shè,1996 nián 8 yuè) and Qiān téng sānqiān zào `zào jiàn jìshùno quánmào'p.130(Xìng yáng shè,1952 nián 7 yuè) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google Translate lied and told you it was Chinese... ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Facepalm Remind me to always double-check. Japanese: Fukui shizuo chosaku-shū dainanakan `Nihon kūbo monogatari'(-kō hito-sha, 1996-nen 8 tsuki) and 千藤三千造 `Zōkan gijutsu no zenbō' p. 130 (Kōyō-sha, 1952-nen 7 tsuki), , which translate to "Japanese Aircraft Carrier Story, Volume 7", August 1996, and "The whole picture of [Zokan?] Tehcnology", July 1952. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Better, now to just get our hands on these and see what they say. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do we have an article which holds a collection of unfulfilled Japanese military projects terminated by the end of the war? A summary of them all in one article would be notable, in my opinion, and if it exists then I would propose a merge. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A collection of unrelated projects in one article? If it's an overview article, or a list article, that's fine, if it's supposed to be the full article, I think that falls under undesirable types of articles. We're not a paper encyclopedia, everything doesn't need to be on one page. In any case, many of the German military projects unfulfilled by war's end already have individual articles, so it is not inconceivable that the other major combatants of WWII would be similarly covered. Though considering the extreme stubbiness, a merge and the later re-split might be appropriate for the extreme stubs. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're not unheard of - see French battlecruiser proposals or German FK cruiser designs for a couple examples that merge several related proposals that could not individually sustain articles. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not because it is WP:OR but because it is a stub with no room for development. While the best source material is this book [12] I am not inclined to order it just to rescue this article, because all it's going to say is it was originally a projected heavy cruiser design that was to be converted into an escort carrier along the lines of the Akagi which would still make it a stub. Jun Kayama 16:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ...given that it was, if I recall, supposed to be based on Ibuki, perhaps a merge/redirect to Japanese cruiser Ibuki (1943) might be feasible? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. Maybe a few additional points in Ibuki mainspace to reinforce the merge/redirect would be the neatest solution. Irondome (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bushranger, which Japanese source would you use to edit the Ibuki article? Jun Kayama 20:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't have the sources or the ability to read Japanese, I don't know. However I do know that it appears we can verify (assuming good faith on the sources in the Japanese wiki article) that the project existed, however it does not even come close to having sufficent notability for a standalone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a non-starter as a standalone article, but it could still be utilised as a few words in Ibuki mainspace, at least mentioning the project. That would save project no G18 from complete oblivion. Perhaps we know of a Japanese Wikipedian naval specialist. This all would obviously be based on the reliability of the Japanese sources. I think that's what Jun had in mind? Irondome (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Sturmvogel 66 wrote both of the Ibuki articles, it would be worthwhile to get his opinion on the issue. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best English-language sources on the Japanese cruiser and carrier construction programs, Lacroix, & Wells's Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War and Lengerer's article "Katsuragi and the Failure of Mass Production of Medium Sized Aircraft Carriers" make no mention of any conversion of heavy cruisers into carriers other than the Ibukis. They were the only two heavy cruisers ordered under the Circle Urgent construction program of 1941 and no others were projected through 1948. One Ibuki was converted into a carrier and the other was broken up a month after construction began under the post-Midway construction program as the IJN scrambled to replace its losses. Lengerer does mention that the IJN anticipated building modified Taiho- and Unryu-class carriers after the first batch was completed, but provides no details nor even a design #. He does say that the Unryu's were coded as G15, but I'm not sure how these design codes were allocated so I don't know if the G prefix was for purpose-built carriers or not. So I think that the above information about a conversion from a heavy cruiser design is incorrect unless that was the design # for the Ibuki conversions. Barring further information, I see no reason to keep this article; if further info is translated that clarifies the situation we can decide how to handle it then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the Unryu conversions were the events we have sources for, and the 2 Ibuki's were seperate and minor schemes. I think they have been conflated. Many IJN archives were destroyed IIRC. IMHO I think we should wait say a month for any futher info to surface if any, and if still zilch at the end of june, delete. Irondome (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Unryus weren't conversions at all; they were purpose-built.

Major Unryus slap in order then. Temporarily lost it and I blame the Japanese language :)Bottom line if there is no evidence that this was a designated project, delete. Wait a few weeks maybe. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2014 (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) 17:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 19:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Young Dancers 2007

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

A competition event that didn't happen, and doesn't cite any coverage beyond the organization itself, is not notable. Rob (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Al Nazari

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

NN 22-year-old subject of this article suddenly has two new editors (confirmed as sock and puppet) and a new IP trying to make an article for him. Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As presently written and sourced, I'm not convinced that this is a notable figure. Most of the references used are tangential, and only establish that the various projects that the subject is involved in, exist. The other sources appear to comprise reprinted bios, speaking schedules, etc. There were also two links that I had to tag as dead, since they didn't resolve anywhere. The one article that appears to be present significant coverage of the subject is this one, but it looks an awful lot like a local news story about a minor student project or something. (For anyone else looking into this, I believe the subject's last name translates to "theoretical", as that word keeps coming up in the machine translations.) Due diligence performed per WP:BEFORE#D.1 turns up no significant results at Google Books or Google News. Contributors are advised to review WP:BIO. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb

Thanks for your kind response. Can you please watch the 3 official TV interviews? as they discussed the subject clearly, and whatever was written in the article are facts and verifiable from different sources. I don't know what other sources or content to edit to avoid delete? shell I ask for certificates copy or something? because we gathered all the information, and compare to many articles here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UAE_Nationals

Please I seek your support and help to what to edit or provide more? this is my first wikipedia article

Feel free to edit anything in the text to make it better

(Trendae (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Trendae has been blocked five days for sockpuppetry. His puppet has been blocked indefinitely. Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trendae, Firstly, none of the video links are working for me. I've had to tag the interviews as dead links. Secondly, interviews aren't going to do much to establish the subject's notability, since Wikipedia is interested in secondary sources, and an interview is typically considered a primary source. We're looking for references that speak ABOUT the subject, without being related to the subject. If the subject is working with TED, then we wouldn't use TED's website as a source for objective coverage of the subject. I'm a little unclear as to why, if you had been working on your first article through the articles for creation process here, your friends decided to jump the gun and submit the same incomplete article in live space. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. GoldenRing (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11, G12) by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 16:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Lawrence's GAA, Manchester

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

No evidence of notability. Has remained unreferenced since 2010. Seems to be primarily written as an advert Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax/Joke. Szzuk (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as copyvio of the club website (e.g. [13]). Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per G-11 and G-12. I have tagged the article accordingly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Madrid (EP)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm only finding torrents and fan forum mentions, no coverage in independent reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 23:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exception paradox

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

This unreferenced article describes a paradox which has next to no trace in any literature. A GBooks search finds a lot of false hits and a series of three books by one author. He appears to be not without credentials but the fact that so basic a thing is only described by him suggests that the idea isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nicholas Rescher Paradoctor (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Gscholar search for "every rule has an exception" paradox nets 38 hits and "there is an exception to every rule" paradox gets 56 hits; of the hits I was able to access, none called it an "exception paradox" and the paradox tended to treated very briefly. That the proverb is a paradox is verifiable, but I don't see enough depth in any of the sources I looked at to pass WP:GNG. It might be worth noting under the "There is an exception to every rule" entry in List of proverbial phrases that the phrase is paradoxical, with a ref. --Mark viking (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we also have a long List of paradoxes that includes this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list only collects notable paradoxes, so it would be removed. Paradoctor (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's simply not notable in its own right. bobrayner (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only criteria that matters is notability. I suspect that this article would have worked very well on Everything2, H2G2 or any number of sites where the goal is to entertain rather than to build an encyclopaedia.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Jakob (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lookism

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines for neologisms, should be deleted on that demerit, alone. In addition, the article presents the following issues: article is written in a feminocentric tone; some sources may show bias; article may draw its own conclusions. Rat Meat (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Several thousand GBook hits, and I expect I would find the same thing in the scholarly literature. The article may be junk but it's a notable topic. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Source examples: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Many more sources exist. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per NorthAmerica. 1292simon (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spinning Spark 14:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1916 - Der Unbekannte Krieg

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

Non-notable game ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:21, 29 May 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) 01:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:PRODUCT. Sources fail WP:RS. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. 1292simon (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. This qualifies for SK#1 because the redirect/merge !vote is not a delete !vote. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opera publica

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

Seems to be a definition. Transwikied to Wiktionary seven years ago. Has been tagged as unsourced for over four years. Holdek (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator due to extensive expansion and sourcing of the article by Anarchangel. --Holdek (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect or merge to Public works, per WP:Use English. Cnilep (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The first of the above two votes shows the danger of assuming the brevity of an article is an indication of its potential. Both, the danger of assuming that Roman public works were the same system as modern ones. Roman historians will avoid the use of the phrase "public works" for the responsibilities of the Roman censors and Aediles, as they had many other duties than public works, and their public works duties included urban planning duties as well as infrastructure building and maintenance. The article has been expanded greatly, and has great potential for further expansion. I will definitely be first to say it, and I may or may not be excused for saying it, and hopefully I will be the last to say: Rome wasn't built in a day. Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

123 Fit

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

Does not meet GNG or CORP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a business, one of millions. There is nothing here that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability for companies and organisations. References are reprints of the company's press release and not reliable. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Shea (Marine Colonel)

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

Tagged for notability, fails WP:SOLDIER. Nothing in here that stands out as notable Gbawden (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and Chris Troutman's remarks above. EricSerge (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and we wouldn't give him benefit of the doubt based on WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper Roach

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

Non notable boxer. Notable brother and father but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Only claims of notability are that his father and brother are notable.Jakejr (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. He doesn't meet NBOX or GNG and notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel Rene

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

Non-notable boxer - criminal charges don't confer notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Coverage of his criminal case is WP:BLP1E. Jakejr (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and I agree with the BLP1E comment. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Shiver

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

Can't find evidence of notability, and none provided since October 2013. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any sources to support notability either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Sources fail WP:RS. Article is just another WP:PROMO by a WP:SPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Simpson

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

unremarkable politician, has not been elected to any post. References are either routine coverage od confirm that he has had a number of articles published in various papers, which does not establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, merely being a candidate in an election is not enough of a claim of notability to justify a Wikipedia article per WP:POLITICIAN — and I really wish that the PR teams who keep rushing these things would learn that. Rather, under normal circumstances if you cannot adequately demonstrate that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. Delete; no prejudice against recreation if he wins in 2015. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another political WP:COATRACK article about an unelected candidate for public office. Beyond which I share Bearcat's frustration with the endless barrage of these sorts of thinly disguised political advertisements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our usual outcomes in such cases. This is almost a policy, it is so well-settled: potential candidates do not get their own articles! Bearian (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As best I can tell he is not even yet a candidate, and he would have to actually win to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CatchGod

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

The only two English language references are passing mentions. Unless corrected by an editor who can read the Chinese language ones I see no verification of notability and precious little notability anyway, if any. Fiddle Faddle 09:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not pulling up anything on a search. I tried searching using "开搞网", but I didn't pull up anything substantial. There was a little chatter about how people are using it for sex hookups, but not really anything else. There's a lack of overall coverage of this. If someone can find coverage in Chinese then I'm willing to be swayed, but I couldn't find anything using the Chinese term and Google Translate- not even really enough to think that there'd be sources with a little more digging. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not have notabilty, due to the lack of reliable secondary sources and small 20,000 people userbase. Out of the 6 Chinese sources, there were 3 primary sources, 1 citizen journalism website, 1 broken link that leads to the site's home page, and only one real news website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jh1234l (talk • contribs) 23:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established with significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Two cited English-language sources had extremely trivial coverage (just mentioning it was the dating site used in a couple stories about other topics). Did not find additional sources. Relying on Jh1234l's summary of the Chinese-alnguage references used. Agyle (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Petra (band). There is a clear consensus that a separate article isn't warranted, but no consensus to deleted the history of the page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Thomason

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

NN subject, probably a vanity page. The subject is a keyboardist with cover bands in Melbourne, Australia, but nothing more. His involvement with Petra, a significant Christian rock band, lasted only a few months. Melb677 (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a vanity page. The band has a few very ardent fans who have an online community that follow the members. The article was likely created by one of them using the fan-gathered information. That does not make the subject notable though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Petra (band) or Delete. The only source in this article was one I added in August 2011, and no additional sources have been found since. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Petra (band), I'm not seeing any serious claim to notability outside of his involvement with that band. It's a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Petra (band) - as per Lankiveil. 1292simon (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Army Hawaii

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

I cannot find a reference to support the existence of this command. 8th Military Police Brigade states "The Brigade is a subordinate unit of US Army Pacific" not US Army Hawaii as this page claims

There is also no mention of this command on http://www.usarpac.army.mil/subordinate_commands.asp Gbawden (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not actually exist as an Army command, base, or any other division of the Army. The Army did have a "department of Hawaii" for the first half of the 20th century, but it doesn't have a separate Hawaii command any more. I suppose this could be redirected to United States Army Pacific since it is a reasonable search term. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The US Army command system does not work in this way (combat units don't report to sub-regional HQs). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Subject does not exist. Possible hoax. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the Yong Ju Gol article as existing in 1953–55, but the Hawaiian Division (United States) only existed until 1941. Maybe it should be 24th Infantry Division (United States) but could it have been referred to at the time as part of United States Army Hawaii? Peter James (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres in Mamuret-ul-Aziz Vilayet

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

There is some material in this article that can be used but it is not enough to substantiate a stand alone article. I see nothing but two sentences regarding Mamuret-ul-Aziz (Harput). Besides, why does Mamuret-ul-Aziz get its own article? Should we have articles for the massacres in the Vilayets of Van, Diyarbakir, Mush, Sivas as well? Best thing to do is move this to Armenian Genocide article Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also the article is full of things like this: "The first sign of danger was the appearance of Kurds supporting the Ottomans from the regions north and east. Villages were attacked, looted and burned, and villagers were killed or scattered. For a time, the marauders seemed to hold aloof from the city itself, but as they kept on their course of pillage their appetite for plunder was whetted, and they looked with avaricious eyes at the city on the hill.". It is not neutral. Sairp (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some important tidbits but article is too small and expansion does not seem warranted.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helga Guitton

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

Prod declined by User:Nick without a valid rationale other than the fact that I was prodding a number of articles by the same creator. Let's review them case by case then. This person doesn't seem to pass WP:N, failing WP:BIO including Wikipedia:Notability (creative professionals) requirements. The articles (here nor on de wiki) don't seem to cite any reliable sources (de wiki uses IMDb, our cites de wiki and a World News Network news aggregator. Being a presenter for the 1973 Eurovision Song Contest is just doing her regular job as a news presenter and "tv talking head". I am not seeing any other reliable sources to expand her bio with. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete For a media person strikingly few media hits in search. No claims of notability. -No.Altenmann >t 05:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No this should not be deleted. I'll say it before and I'll say it again, The Eurovision Song Contest presenter is not a regular job, she presented it all over Europe and she was well known in both Germany and Luxembourg. I have no idea why you are against all my article and what gives you any right to delete them, without reason. Mrluke485 11:16, 29 May 2014 (CET)

- @Mrluke485: I told you before that we disagree on the importance of being an Eurovision Song Contest presenter, and I have not seen any consensus leaning towards your point of view. Please expand the article to show that it meets the cited notability guideline, and make sure your other articles meet it as well, and I won't have to review more of your work. Please look at how others are trying to save your articles, and learn from them. I am sure they'd be happy to guide you into how you can write better content less likely to end up here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm finding sufficient press coverage to establish notability, although a lot of it comes from her having attempted to interview Klaus Kinski (the result was issued on DVD and attracted critical commentary). I've added some references, more to come. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good, but are any of those sources mentioning her more than in passing? The fact that she did some interviews with notable people and such is not an indicator her notability; but simply of her doing her job as a journalist.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes they are. As I say, the DVD attracted critical reviews: two of which I have added to the article. Both talk at length about the Kinski interview, how he behaved and how she reacted, how she appears in the interview. The Radio-Kurier article is about three RTL personalities, of which she is one: I expect to add more from that source but had to end my earlier editing session. The first Der Spiegel source I cite, the 1988, has less about her—it devotes a sentence or two to one programme she was slated to co-host. Click on them and you can see the extent of the coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Yngvadottir: Thank you for the extensive information, and I appreciate your trying to save the article. Please let me know when you are done expanding it, and I'll re-review the situation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, I think I'm done; I managed to find a reliable source for the Eurovision stint, although Google won't let me see even a snippet from the book on Eurovision and the book on Luxembourg that it tells me include a line about it. There may well be more book mentions out there (I imagine there's a history of RTL somewhere), but I think I've found all I can. And I do think it suffices to show that she had an important career. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Yngvadottir: Nice job. While personally I still have doubts about the subject's notability, thanks to your work the community seems to lean towards keeping it - which my inclusionist sentiments appreciate, too :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks to Yngvadottir's efforts! Eustachiusz (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a presenter of Eurovision which has a global audience of over 180 million per annum. Also per the research that Yngvadottir took the liberty to find. Wes Mᴥuse 18:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Petite Mort (James album)

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

This article is too soon. The album hasn't been released. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And even if it had been released it should meet Wikipedia:Notability (music albums). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An album does not have to have been released in order to merit an article: "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." To propose deletion of the article on such grounds only four days prior to its release seems odd to me. However, I would certainly accept that, as it stands, the article requires more reliable sources. Longwayround (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Longwayround. Eustachiusz (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article, added several more sources and expect to add links to more reviews on Saturday or Sunday (when the printed media tends to publish its album reviews). Longwayround (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Longwayround's additions to the article; there's enough existing coverage to warrant a standalone article. Gongshow talk 23:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominating an article because it 'hasn't been released' when it's released a few days after the AfD starts doesn't make a lot of sense. There are already more than adequate sources available and it will obviously receive further coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Upon a source review, meets WP:NALBUMS/WP:GNG. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some reviews and links to show notability - and I'm sure that there will be a lot more good reviews to come too - and James fans mostly seem to like it too - check out the reviews on Amazon.PaukiPKK (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)PaukiPKK[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kowalik

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

Deprodded by anon. I stand by my prod rationale: "This biography does not seem to pass the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (biographies): no significant achievements, no significant coverage in mainstream, reliable sources." See pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2014:05:26:Adam Kowalik (pallotyn) for Polish language discussion, and I'd appreciate it if a Portuguese speaker could start one at the pr wiki. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence for particular notability. -No.Altenmann >t 05:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I have no idea how to judge the impact of his work on canon law, but the article makes him appear to be a lower-level judge (compare WP:POLITICIAN: U.S. state supreme court or federal appeals court judge might be enough, anything lower probably not) and parish priest (again: bishop maybe enough, lower no). Notability has not been demonstrated. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All regular US district court judges have been deemed notable and have articles. What happens with state court judges is a bit different, but it seems our rule is that federal judges in the general sense of the term are all notable. How that applies here I am not sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little impact on scholarship per GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since 舎利弗 gave only a weak keep and deferred to others who said delete. Further, the "best newscast award", which led 舎利弗 to be undecided, is for the show, not the presenters. The 2008 newscaster award went to May Ortega, not Romero. I couldn't find an equivalent page for 2007 and the rest of the claims are for finalist, not winners. Spinning Spark 14:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin Romero

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

Except for some "controversy" here and there (of the kind reported on gossip sites), there is no coverage on this person who, it is my contention, does not pass the GNG as a run-of-the-mill broadcaster. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced BLP, fails GNG (no sources given). Ping me if sources are presented and I can revisit this case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG (i.e., I cannot find independent, reliable sources that cover her extensively). She also doesn't seem to pass WP:CREATIVE for journalists. That said, however, she did win the 2010 Best Radio Newscast Award from the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster (Association of Broadcasters of the Philippines), the most prestigious organization in the local industry according to this report by ABS-CBN. I cannot confirm the validity of the claims in the article as it is now (e.g., that she won a Golden Dove, which is similarly the most prestigious award in Philippine mass media). That said, I am not sure if the Best Radio Newscast Award—let's consider only this one for now as there is no confirmation yet if she'd actually won a Golden Dove—constitutes "a well-known and significant award or honor" as stipulated in WP:ANYBIO item 1. If this is not the case, then I'd be happy to vote in favor of deletion. Otherwise, I say keep. 舎利弗 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not supported by sources. 1292simon (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mars Ill. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Fame

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

Has been tagged as unreferenced since April 2008. A fairly thorough g-hits search brought up nothing. ¿3family6 _contribs 18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Out of order~~: there is an active merge discussion affecting this page and the page is correctly tagged. See Talk:Mars Ill. The result of that discussion seems likely to result in this page being deleted anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion has been stagnant for a while, as you've seen. Perhaps it's a case of WP:BEFORE in that the nom should have not recommended deletion when there was a valid merge target, but I'm not sure that "out of order" is a thing unless you meant that the nom met the speedy keep criteria. czar ♔ 03:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. I didn't mean to imply wrong-doing by saying "out of order", and I didn't mean "speedy keep" although I guess that's close. On second thought, it seems that notwithstanding the stale merge discussion there's no likely reason to keep this, but Mars Ill is a suitable merge target, per WP:CHEAP. Therefore, !vote changed to merge and redirect to Mars Ill. Replying above the relist for clarity. Ivanvector (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the request on the page. Andrew³²⁷ 06:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mars Ill. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. — Wylie pedia 19:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Code of a Killer

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

WP:TOOSOON, WP:FFILM — Wylie pedia 05:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: There are far worse examples out there, and this nom is heading into the fog. CoaK just needs more sources, as suggested here. — Wylie pedia 19:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you find it necessary to delete it, go ahead. I'm not going to stop you. I'll save the current article code in my sandbox, edit it until its okay for republish. What needs changing? And to comply with WP:TOOSOON, when is a reasonable time to republish it? Thanks. --Limbsaw 10:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Click on the part in the quotation marks above, or Google for more sources. It needs more than a press release from the network. — Wylie pedia 11:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is already being discussed among entertainment outlets even though it's not a long way through its production cycle. I see no reason to remove the article. It has received some significant and in depth coverage, The coverage has spanned over a week and will likely crop up among entertainment news for some time. There has been national coverage, There has been German coverage. A rewrite certainly, and a close eye kept on it but I think it may well end up staying. SPACKlick (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Living History of Illinois and Chicago

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

No evidence of reliable, independent coverage of any depth, failing to meet the criteria per WP:GROUP and WP:GNG. Creator of article appears to be the group's founder. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User is a trusted group reviewer on some wikis. The Living History of Illinois and Chicago is a real group. Many famous members and contributors have posted history and photographs. Before considering deletion, look at the depth of the postings and photos presented. There are some major articles and news stories in the works. Citations were added.

Notability of an organization is not inherited through its members, per WP:ORGSIG. The new references are simply results of a Facebook search (primary sources of an unreliable source), and the examples may be cherry-picked to increase the apparent notability, which may constitute original research. Only if reliable, independent sources assert the claim of "many famous members" can it be considered evidence of notability, but still may not satisfy the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG.--Animalparty-- (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Animalparty-- is absolutely right, though I don't think it would satisfy those criteria. There are plenty of committees, councils and forums with notable members which aren't themselves notable. A collective with notable members isn't necessarily a notable collective. Stalwart111 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - realness or not is irrelevant. Famous members or not is irrelevant. The standing of the creator is irrelevant. "Depth of postings" is irrelevant. The group needs to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. It hasn't so it doesn't. Stalwart111 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 16:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Maitland-Lewis

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

Insufficient notability for this wiki, does not meet WP:AUTHOR. One hit on Highbeam, one passing mention on Google News. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if the article looks very short as it now stands, that is because I have commented out a good quantity of completely unreferenced material (this is, after all, a BLP). That content is of course still accessible in edit mode or through the history. I can't see the content of the previously deleted version; this could be eligible for speedy deletion as G4. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I went and peeked at the old deleted versions, I don't think it's G4-eligible. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:11, 27 May 2014 (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 02:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of his novels has won an award from the Independant Book Publishers Association, but I don't know if this is considered a significant award.TheLongTone (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure author. Typically need some mainstream book reviews to meet AUTHOR. Maybe I am missing it but can't find any. Based on the bio at Amazon he is a businessman from LA with blurbs the Mayor of LA etc.. the book awards are not significant and one USA Best Book Awards is a vanity award. His publisher Glyd-Evans has a catalog of 6 books of which Maitland's comprise 3. -- GreenC 23:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. 1292simon (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 by Jimfbleak.—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Emokpare Abraham

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

No sign of notability for this person. All 36 Google hits are social media or this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Notability not even asserted. Search for sources gets nothing reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Is there a speedy-Del category for the likes? -No.Altenmann >t 05:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did put it up for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed through another account. However, I filed a sockpuppet report, so maybe someone else retagged it on the grounds that the creator and the tag remover were the same person. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Nicholas Gomes

AfDs for this article:

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

Not generally notable. Primarily a (very short) hatrack. Positive facts don't seem notable; negative ones highlighted in their own section likewise. – SJ + 18:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Deleted once already in 2009. Since it's been recreated it has been a slow-burning edit war. If this were uncontroversial I would leave it, on the theory that it's borderline and might improve. But it seems likely to be a continual edit war between two parties; as a BLP, not worth the potential harm. – SJ + 20:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as editor. William Nicholas Gomes is not a significant figure in Bangladesh. I suspect William Nicholas Gomes himself editing this article by using user name Totapakhi. This article was mostly cited with self published news and blog posts and was used to defame a political party in Bangladesh, which is against Wp:NPOV.--FreemesM ^(talk) 07:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thoroughly nonnotable. -No.Altenmann >t 05:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Person seems mainly "notable" for only one event (see WP:ONEEVENT), and a fairly minor one (a tweet!), which is not sufficient to establish notability. The other references include a passing mentions, which do not satisfy WP:BASIC. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Politicians and candidates receive lots of death threats. I even received one as a candidate for student body president at my undergrad college. See also WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Kazimov

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP and nothing shows that he meets WP:KICK. Jakejr (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically an unsourced BLP with no claims (or supporting evidence) to show he meets WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor McCumby

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

Non-notabel, undersourced boxer. Did well once as a junior but nothing of note since. Does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A junior title does not show notability. Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and lacks the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsett Barnwell

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

Non-notable boxer, undersourced. Appears he did well as a Junior but that is not enough to meet WP:NBOX. Nothing but non-notable bouts since then. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Junior accomplishments don't meet WP:NBOX and WP:GNG is not met with the only source showing his fight record. Jakejr (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet NBOX or GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previously mentioned, he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOX. His junior accomplishments are insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Manhoef

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has a pretty good record, but I can't find any evidence he meets WP:KICK. Jakejr (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:KICK. The "New Heroes" championship is not the same as being the SuperKombat world champion.Mdtemp (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if he were the SuperKombat world champ, it wouldn't be enough to meet WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S. V. Ramani

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

unsuccessful politician, delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES Gfosankar (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates do not pass WP:POLITICIAN just for being candidates — to qualify for an article on here, a person must either win election to a notable office, or have preexisting notability that would get them past a different inclusion guideline. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Safala

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

Fictional character in an "now cancelled" game and a book that "is being written." No evidence given for either of these assertions, thus failing WP:V, and no assertion of notability per WP:N. Note also the edits to the article by User:Safala, whose personal project this might be. - Impsswoon (talk) 00:15, 29 May 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) 01:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find nothing on this character in relation to Teamo Successfullo when I searched. Unless someone can dig up some print or non-English sources out of my reach (ping me if so), the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search (not a single hit for the game name). czar ♔ 02:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't even have an article about the game. Fails notability guidelines spectacularly. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - non-notable organisation pushing an absurd idea. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Identity Nation

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

Zero coverage in independent news sources. Possible vanity project / astroturfing of just one guy and his buddies; user posted screengrabs and links to the article on Facebook just minutes after creation. Blackguard 00:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. A search for RS coverage gets some passing mentions in the local press. This organization is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of Active Christian Identity Groups. I'm not finding anything to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After further searching, all RS coverage appears to come from the SPLC's listing of this group. Nothing of any depth found. Citations in the article don't support the content. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This is probably speedyable given that there's zero coverage in reliable sources and the ones in the article that could be seen as reliable don't actually discuss the group at all. Also, the writing at times seems like it was written by a member of the group and it reads a little in favor of it, so it could be seen as a little promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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