Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 November	12 November >

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 Speedy delete. Deleted by RHaworth (G11) on 15 November 2014. Natg 19 (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chin2 Bhosle[edit]

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

Promo written (possibly PR company rep from name) article about singer whose notability is relation to other subjects. Refs are primary. Written as a promo ("giving you mega hits like..." EBY (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11. Promotional garbage for a nonnotable artist. Dea db eef 05:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashour Asho[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. I couldn't even find him listed at boxrec.com.Mdtemp (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Best evidence is that he's had 1 pro fight--hardly enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moser-Roth[edit]

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

It really is a bad idea to put "Company, corporation or organization" as an CSD criterion and then "Organisation, corporation or product" as an XfD category - I keep thinking CSD applies to products! That said.

At best, this is of questionable factual accuracy. I frequently shop in Aldi in Anerley and buy Moser-Roth chocolate. I have never once seen the word "Storck" on it, which would lead me to believe it is unaffiliated, though I will be checking the next time I go in there. At worst, this is of seriously questionable notability - no indication is provided and I can't find much online. Laun chba ller 21:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Nominator doesn't understand CSD" is not a valid rationale for AfD.

This is one of a recent series of confectionery AfDs with as little behind some of them as "I don't like nuts". This is a big confectionery brand, the house brand supplying a major slice of the confectionery for Aldi, a massive, and getting more so, grocery chain. They've been around for 170 years. How does an CSD#A7 or even an AfD stand up for such a major brand? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a 1941 centennial Festschrift for the company written by de:August Lämmle, a prominent Swabian local historian and dialect writer. Its history is covered in multiple online sites, including a large part of the 1910 episode in a series on Stuttgart through the decades published by the Stuttgarter Zeitung in cooperation with the city archives. And as an Aldi supplier it's a main example in at least two books and an article on Storck and the current head of the company. One of the books mentions its having been awarded a prize in 2007. I completed the translation of the German article, made a couple of corrections, and added references. I believe it now demonstrably meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that the article now meets WP:GNG. Withdrawn with a note saying that the first part of the nomination was an apologetic explanation to Bbb23 as to why I CSDd it first.--Laun chba ller 10:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem convinced that Deletion is Cleanup. This is not a good way to proceed. Whether or not a good result was achieved in this case, that's still a great way to piss off other editors faster than it improves article quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Hoffman[edit]

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

Martial artist who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. There is no significant independent coverage of him and I don't believe heading a group of 3000 (another unsourced claim) is enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see evidence that he meets either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill.com[edit]

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

Originally prodded by me with the following rationale, which I believe is still valid: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement". It was deprodded by the creator, who added a few sources (unfortunately, I don't think they are sufficient to change the situation), and an argument that the article is useful at Talk:Bill.com, which unfortunately is a classic example of an argument listed at WP:USEFUL (arguments not to use in deletion debates). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There does appear to be enough reliable sources to establish WP:GNG for this company. For example, these articles were recently published: Lee, Danielle (27 October 2014). "Bill.com Partners with Intuit to Benefit QB ProAdvisors". Accounting Today. Retrieved 18 November 2014. and Oliver, Blake (27 October 2014). "Harvard, MIT and $100,000 in Free Consulting: How One Accounting Firm Plans to Hit Aggressive Growth Goals". CPA Practice Advisor. Retrieved 18 November 2014. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seikichi Iha[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. The sources are primary and there's no indication of notability except for his rank, which is not a notability criteria. Heading an association that he founded also doesn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. This is an old article and he doesn't appear to have come on much since 2006. Such notability as he has is a result of his having a wikipedia article! Deb (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and no supporting evidence to show he's a notable martial artist (see WP:MANOTE). Papaursa (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lovi[edit]

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

Non notable martial artist. Having a high rank doesn't show notability and, according to the IBJJF website, his only tournament success was in a senior division at the 2009 European Open when he won first as the only competitor in his division.[1] Training with notable martial artists does not make you notable nor does hosting seminars for other martial artists (WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claims for notability seem to be an attempt to inherit notability from others. No supported claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cole (public relations)[edit]

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

Deletion is requested in behalf of the subject of this article, who has objected to its existence in VRTS ticket # 2014110810005782. The standard response is to offer to correct errors or nominate the article for deletion. He was given the opportunity to correct errors in the article, but he prefers deletion, with the understanding that the community may elect to keep it. I have no objection to its removal. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As article creator the major source I used, as evidenced by the article itself, was his own website so the "many errors" might well be his or his people's own fault. I can see nothing unsourced in the article for him to get upset about but I'm not going to argue strongly for keeping as really he was never that important in the first place (and certainly not now as his media profile has been lower than a gnat's belly for years) and Wikipedia will easily survive without him. No real objections to deletion from me essentially. Keresaspa (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only specific objection he mentioned in the email was about his education (wrong school). Because the source didn't support the claim about his attendance, I deleted the entire education section. That, apparently, wasn't sufficient. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Royal Correspondent at the BBC is a pretty notable post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The post may be notable, but does that make the person notable by virtue of inhabiting it? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Following is an excerpt from OTRS correspondence with Mr Cole, reproduced here with permission. He hopes that the reviewing administrator will seriously consider this appeal. As for myself, like the author of the article, I have no problem with its disappearance. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...
I wish my privacy to be respected by Wikipedia. As I have already demonstrated, the capacity for error in such entries is very great. You have acknowledged this by removing the reference to Millfield School. I do not ask if you have replaced it with citation of Preston Manor County Grammar School because, of course, I wish no mention by you at all.
During my working life, I have met 10 other people called Michael Cole, including a newspaper journalist, a Royal Navy Admiral and a producer of BBC television programmes for children. The possibility of mistaken identity is just one of the hazards in the path of a person with as common a name as mine.
In addition, things become rapidly out of date. After 14 successful years, I wound up my highly solvent company, Michael Cole & Co. Ltd., in good order in 2012. But this significant change goes largely unremarked or is passed by in allegedly authoritative listings, although Companies House was notified as legally lequired.
I do not complain abaout this and it is hardly surprising as my company was not WPP. It was one of a sole trader and that sole lonely figure was me!
Disolving my company was just one of the ways in which, at the age of 71, I have sought to assert and protect my privacy. Being removed from Wikipedia is another.
I have neither the time nor inclination to work through my entry correcting all the errors, unwonted inferences and obvious misunderstandings. Indeed, I should not be expected to do so in order to protect an invaluable abstract, my right to privacy.
You mentioned a newspaper and the BBC and in such a way as to suggest that they are impeccable sources of factual information. Well, I worked for newspapers for 7 years and for the BBC for more than 20. I have to tell you that your faith is misplaced; the BBC and newspapers often make factual mistakes and more often than not, they are not promptly corrected and sometimes never.
Correcting the record is notoriously difficult, particularly as most newspapers are very reluctant to admit it when they have made a mistaken, as you would know if you have ever tried to do it.
If you have ever read a story or heard a report about something of which you have close, factual knowledge (it does not have to have a personal connection) you will know that the journalists always get something wrong. They may not mean to but they do.
So, please do the decent thing and comply with my request.
You will have your own ways of doing things but I should like to think that whomsoever is making the decision in this matter should be fully aware of our e-mail correspondence in the hope that it will enlighten him, her or them to the perfectly respectable, rational and reasonable reasons that have motivated this earnest request to you.
...
Yours sincerely,
Michael (Dexter) Cole

Delete because much of the coverage of him is inherited. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed much of his coverage seems to be inherited from Al Fayed. starship.paint ~ regal 08:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I agree with many of the points above, but there is probaby enough here to merit keeping as the Al Fayeds' key spokesman for many years, irrespective of what Necrothesp rightly points out about BBC Royal Correspondent above. We could suggest WP:TRANS into the entry on Al Fayed as this appears to be the strongest reason regarding WP:GNG? Mediavalia (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect and merge to Mohamed Al-Fayed. Because I am technically not the nominator (just a proxy for the subject who wants the article deleted), I feel justified in providing my own views. I see four arguments for removing this article:
Speedy deletion: The short contribution history shows the appearance of a couple other editors expanding the article, but all of those additions have been removed, leaving dominant only the contributions of Keresaspa, who created it. And he has no objections to its deletion (see his comment above), bringing this article into speedy-delete territory on WP:CSD#G7 grounds. If Keresaspa happened to tag the article with {{db-g7}}, its subsequent deletion would be speedy and uncontroversial.
Liability: According to Mr Cole's statement reproduced above, the article is rife with errors because the cited independent sources misrepresent facts, and he has no interest in correcting them because he wants the article deleted. Even considering WP:NOTTRUTH, if the sources didn't get the facts straight, Wikipedia's purpose in disseminating knowledge isn't served by compounding the problem, and exposes the WMF to potential liability if libel issues arise with the cited sources.
Position vs person: An influential post at the BBC may be notable, the person who inhabits may not be, particularly if no coverage about that person in the context of that post can be found. Ford Motor Company has had several presidents, for example, but not all of them are notable enough to merit an article here.
Inherited notability: The remaining sources imply that the subject inherited notability through Mohamed Al-Fayed. Appropriate parts of this article could be merged there, and this article could be converted to a redirect.
I admit that second point is weak, but with all four taken together, I am leaning toward deletion. The article would not be missed, and the subject would be grateful. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, I tend to agree with these arguments. So on reflection I'd lean towards delete too.Mediavalia (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is some in-depth coverage in reliable sources, a strong case can be made for inherited notability through Mohamed Al-Fayed. Moreover, since the subject of the article would like it deleted, I find no reason to keep it. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Sauer[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet either WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Article's only source doesn't mention him and winning a poll doesn't show notability. Having a high rank in BJJ is not enough to show notability nor is having a well known teacher. Of course there's the usual unsourced claims of training SWAT, FBI, CIA, and other elite military organizations. Mdtemp (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with nom--there's nothing in this article to support claims of meeting WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Costigan (youth speaker)[edit]

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

SPA-created article for a subject that has no 3rd party refs to establish notability. Article is promotional. EBY (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Columnists, even for notable publications, are not automatically notable themselves. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in this article establishes notability. Reliable sources showing notability do not seem to exist. Just writing and speaking does not make him notable. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep based on satisfaction of the General notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Shaloam David[edit]

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

I understand that this person may have religious significance - but I fail to see any general notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject has an entry in a printed encyclopedia that is linked in the article and itself provides the basis for notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are all entries in the Jewish Encyclopedia automatically sufficiently notable? I don't see any indication that we have a standing consensus that is the case, and I would say that this person pushes the envelope on the matter. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The notability standards for the Jewish Encyclopedia are way higher than WP's--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agree with User Brewcrewer (talk · contribs) that because this article is almost entirely reprinted from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia hence it is WP:V based on a WP:RS, and is now in the public domain that it is therefore beneficial to WP as an encyclopedic article. Also, in years gone by, User Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [2] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~: no opinion for now, but I disagree with the arguments advanced so far for keeping the article; though the Jewish Encyclopedia was sometimes more selective than Wikipedia, but often less so. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak keep: The subject seems to meet the letter of GNG. This article and this book, both by the same author, one Maisie Meyer, seem to be reliable sources with significant coverage, especially when taken with the Jewish Encyclopedia article and the Jewish Chronicle article the latter is based on. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless someone finds another source to support the entry, else it fails WP:GNG. Being mentioned in a specialist encyclopedia is not a sufficient reason to include it in a different one. Notability in this encyclopedia requires at least two reliable sources, unless it is covered under a subject specific guideline. This article only has one citation and I am not aware of any other criteria that would make this person inherently notable. Fuebaey (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG does not require "at least two reliable sources" (italics in original). Also, see above comment from User:הסרפד wherein he links to two more sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It states multiple sources are generally expected and the terms on sources are in plural form. I'm not quite sure how my interpretation is entirely incorrect, but good on הסרפד for finding other references irregardless. Fuebaey (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say your interpretation was incorrect, I said your statement of fact -- that GNG requires two sources -- was incorrect. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient reliable sources for WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toffifee[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Laun chba ller 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep That's why we have WP:BEFORE. How about going and finding such indications? This is a pretty substantial international brand. Storck are one of the top ten world confectionery makers. I don't know their market share, but their ad budget for Toffifee is £3M. There are UK TV adverts running right now. Let alone trade papers like The Grocer. Maybe such things aren't in the article at present, but per our policy for deletion the criteria are whether such things exist, not if nominators can't be bothered to look for them.

This is not an interesting article and nor is it an interesting product. However that is not a valid reason for deletion. Your recent spree of confectionery deletions (Paynes Poppets, Moser-Roth, Toffifee & Moser-Roth (twice)) have been on such shaky basis as " If this [Paynes Poppets] ends in delete, I will also be AfDing Toffifee.", "Much worse product, as well, but I don't like nuts" or just being completely confused between Moser-Roth and Storck, yet not bothering to sort your own knowledge out before slapping around the deletion requests. AfD is not about your ignorance, or your dislike of nuts, it's about notability and very little else. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yeah, fairly big big brand really is Toffifee (or Toffifay in the US). My minute or two on Google came up with these, from Esquire, The Grocer, Talking Retail, Scottish Grocer, and Kennedy's Confection. I mean they're not exactly weighty tomes about Toffifee, but they do demonstrate notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom has admitted he's using this Afd for cleanup here, this should only be done if the nom suspects that an article is not notable, however his comments indicate he's fully aware the article is notable rendering that rationale invalid. Szzuk (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable brand, though it is difficult to find extensive information on it. This is fairly typical from HighBeam. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theo De Gelaen[edit]

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

Martial artist who fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Only source is to a link describing an upcoming seminar where he will teach everyone how "to disarm an attacker without touching him." Seems like he created another made-up martial art.Mdtemp (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Please.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No significant coverage and no supported claims of any martial arts notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Cătinaș[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer who fails to meet the kickboxing criteria at WP:KICK. Mdtemp (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I invite you to delete all the kickboxers on Wikipedia, because you have established some strange rules excluding SuperKombat and not only. Catinas is a very known kickboxer, a top 20 heavyweight in the world, he was ranked #10 on LiverKick.com at some moment. The article is well written, he was the youngest the fighter to qualify for the K-1 Final 16, after Badr Hari. Based on your judgment, you can also start deleting Dževad Poturak, Brice Guidon, Paul Slowinski, Makoto Uehara, etc. Sometimes you need to be wise. Now I'm asking myself, you are anti-SK fighters only? I will personally talk to some administrators about this. Dammst (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you spammed a message around to 21 administrators, who are not at all involved in this? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly you appeared from nowhere, you had 0 discussions about kickboxing previously. Moreover you even recommended deletion. These admins will be involved because somebody is manipulating big! Dammst (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading my watchlist, I noticed your post on Jimbo's talk page. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if SuperKombat was considered one of the organizations that could show notability, it wouldn't do him any good since he hasn't fought for their world title. Feel free to change my vote if someone can show he was ranked in the world top 10 by a reliable and independent source.Mdtemp (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not meeting WP:KICK#People, given the subject of the article hasn't fought for a major world title. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT DEAR ADMINISTRATORS, SOME OF THE USERS INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION ARE USING MORE ACCOUNTS. Thine Antique Pen is another account of a user previously involved in the discussion. Dammst (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of sockpuppetry, are you? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT DEAR ADMINISTRATORS, Thine Antique Pen IS LYING, HE IS JUST ANOTHER ACCOUNT OF A USER INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION. PLEASE DON'T BELIEVE HIM! HE WILL TRICK YOU ALL. Dammst (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:KICK. (And before you ask how I got here, Dammst, I watchlist a few admins you spammed your notice to.) Origamite^ⓣⓒ 20:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but per WP:NSPORTS#Kickboxing. K-1 semifinalist seems to not quite satisfy the criteria. Since when do WikiProjects get to make up their own notability rules? Ivanvector (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, some users know nothing about kickboxing, please ask Master Sun Tzu why they don't treat us fair and objectively SuperKombat isn't on the list after we have discussed. Then this PRehse is very subjective. It's not normal PRehse to act like he is superior, the same his friends to back him. The kickboxing fans are discriminated. The whole rules of the Wikipedia Kickboxing Project are wrong. They confuse bodies with promotions, then the bodies are notable but all the top promotions not. NOW THEY KEEP DELETING BECAUSE THEY HAVE ESTABLISHED SOME SUBJECTIVE CRITERIAS. Some UFC fans and PRehse who isn't a kickboxing fan. I ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS THERE BUT THEY DON'T ALLOW US TO MODIFY. And to make differences between promotions and bodies, to exemplify the WORLD GRAND PRIX and so on. Dammst (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to develop Wikipedia, I am a writer, I am not here to destroy, to delete. I don't write about non-notable kickboxers. Please believe me. ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ARE CHECKING YOUR SITE FOR ITS KICKBOXING RECORDS. There is no Kickboxingrec. My intentions are 100% good. This is in the advatange of the Wikipedia and of more people than 2-3. Dammst (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, Dammst. Your enthusiasm is admirable but it is not required here. I had a look at SUPERKOMBAT - it says SK partnered with K-1 for a time, but that partnership ended. The league is not listed as one of the ones we consider top-level, so although he won that championship and competed for it several other times, it's not enough to satisfy our criteria. The K-1 events he fought in were not world championships, they were qualifiers for the world championship events, and he did not qualify. He doesn't meet our standards for inclusion at this time. If you think that SK should be included in the organizations considered "major promotions" for this guideline, you should talk to the folks at WikiProject Kickboxing. Personally, I don't see evidence to support that. Ivanvector (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan, SuperKombat is currently the second best active kickboxing promotion in the world. It's exactly like Bellator. I'm honest. Dammst (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: before this gets snowballed, I'm going to post over at WP:KICK for a more experienced opinion on SuperKombat. Cătinaș has competed for the championship of that promotion three times and won once. He could barely pass WP:NSPORTS#Kickboxing based on that. Ivanvector (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if SUPERKOMBAT is notable Catinas didn't fight for highest title, he only won qualifying tournament for the main one. So not notable. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The naming of these tournaments is confusing, but I see that now. It's pretty clear-cut, I stand by my earlier !vote. Ivanvector (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about modifying the criterias? Look, Catinas is signed to the SuperKombat, he can't fight for a body title and just because he didn't fight the heavyweight championship in the promotion it doesn't mean he's not notable. ANY TOP PROMOTION WINNER OF A WORLD GRAND PRIX OR TOURNAMENT SHOULD BE NOTABLE! This is just wrong. He won a WGP. Dammst (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's something you'll have to take up with WikiProject Martial arts. The guideline there is supposed to reflect the general notability guideline. If you can establish that Cătinaș or other fighters who are signed to SK but haven't competed for its title are talked about frequently in reliable sources such that they meet the general guideline, then it may be that the notability guidelines that the WikiProject came up with are wrong. I've looked and I don't see a lot of independent English-language sources, but you might have better success with Romanian sources (which I can't read). Just a thought. As it stands, this article doesn't pass. Ivanvector (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superkombat consists of 4 qualifying tournaments for a main tournament, and winners of that main WGP are: Pavel Zhuravlev x2 and Frank Munoz. Catinas didn't even fight in a main WGP. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't currently meet the criteria for inclusion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the nominator is correct here. Discussing changing the notability criteria is a discussion for another place. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:KICK and the notability of SuperKombat fighters has already been discussed several times this year at WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Simmons[edit]

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

Non-notable college offensive lineman. I was not able to find much sources on him. Natg 19 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass either NGRIDIRON or GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never played fullly professional and so WP:NGRIDIRON fails. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott de Hilster[edit]

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

Fails the qualifications for WP:BLPFRINGE. Not a notable WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF besides. jps (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; does not meet the relevant notability criteria, and no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein Wrong: The Miracle Year[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. jps (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am sympathetic to filmmaker David Scott de Hilster, as documentary films rarely do as well as narrative fictions. While this may one day become notable enough for its own article, it hasn't yet. If it ever does, the article can always be undeleted. Until then, it can be spoken of in the filmmaker's article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I just can't find anything to show that this documentary is notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER, or if you prefer, WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Klint[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated after tagging for four years. It was proposed for deletion early on, but the PROD template was removed without explanation. – Fayenatic London 18:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like he isn't notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep/comment - Hmm. There are a couple interviews/articles from 2006 on Google Books, and in 2008, he was held up as the first example of his type of model.[3] One of the 2006 articles, in Elle says much the same thing: "the current class president of Prada's art-school look." He was a big part of the Prada look and was the male "face" of Prada for a while and has had quite a successful and long running career. Quite a bit of ongoing coverage in publications (and webzines) such as Fashionisto. His problem is that he's a guy and 99 times out of 100, the media would rather write about pretty girls, but he has had a pretty large amount of coverage and exposure, still ongoing (which in model terms is VERY impressive), and certainly seems as if he ought to be covered somewhere. Mabalu (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable; doesn't meet, IMO, threshold for WP:FASHION. Quis separabit? 15:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Choekyi Gyaltsen, 10th Panchen Lama. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yabshi Pan Rinzinwangmo[edit]

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

It seems to me that she has insufficient independent notability. I would suggest either outright delete or, in the alternative, merge to Choekyi Gyaltsen, 10th Panchen Lama. --Nlu (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems sensible. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 10:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Live performances[edit]

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

Author keeps secret where he/she is talking about. The Banner talk 18:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Live performances about what? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions events on 13 & 14 May 2011 at Allphones Arena in Sydney. According to archive.org's copy of the website, this coincides with concerts by André Rieu.[4] Further searching confirmed listed dates for the rest of Australia.[5] That's one mystery solved. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Fox (wrestler)[edit]

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

Unsourced and not notable. Looks like a local Puerto Rican wrestler. We don't know even if the guy exist. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the only source (a title history) says that Phoenix Star (other wrestler) won the title. No source Jay Fox wrestled as Phoenix Starr and won the title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wrestler Jay Fox adopted the gimmick in 2007 as part of a later kayfabe feud between him and the original Phoenix Star. Being puertorican wrestling, it isn't covered by much media, so there aren't many sources. Beinging a former booker and wrestling executive in Puerto Rico, and having been to almost every IWA and WWC wrestling event for the past 15 years, I can confirm the feud. The original Phoenix Star wasn't the champion, but was the reason Fox lost the title in June. There were disputes in naming him Phoenix Star II, but the company never made the effort, but Fox, as Phoenix Star, did win the Cruiserweight Championship, not the original Phonenix Star, so there's no reason to credit the original Star on winning a championship he never won. There was one difference in their names, and it was that Fox used the nickname El Lucha' instead of El Lucha as a puertorican slang, and it can be seen on the source mentioned before. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 3:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No sources. If he isn't covered by the media, he isn't notable. He doesn't even appeared in over satruated websites like Cagematch, WrestlingData or Wrestling Internet DataBase. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't covered by the media because he hasn't been featured in many angles. Yes, like a lot of puertorican wrestlers, he doesn't appear on those websites, but that isn't an excuse to credit the original Phoenix Star with a championship reign he never had. Fox's title reign as the adopting Phoenix Star is a reliable source. Yes his profile isn't on those sites, but as said before, it may be due to lack of mainstream exposure and his constant inactivity due to injuries (kayfabe and legitimate). Also, those websites aren't entirely reliable, as they store information requested and sent by outside parties, and have proven before to have wrong information and data. When and if Fox comes back, I'm sure his profile will be created on those websites and all of the confusion will be over with. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 5:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's simple. Without sources, he isn't notable. Also, we haven't sources about Fox wrestled as Phoenix Star, only your word. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources of his championship reign as El Lucha' Phoenix Star, and yes my word, one of the former IWA bookers who were responsible for that angle. And besides when Fox decides to come back, I'm sure this will be settled and more sources will be available. Also, it's not my word, it's the IWA's, they don't recognize Phoenix Star as a Cruiserweight Champion, they recognize Jay Fox as El Lucha' Phoenix Star as a former champion, so there's no reason to credit Phoenix Star with a reign he never had, as that would be hurting this online encyclopedia's reliability, as something that didn't happen (the original Phoenix Star as a former IWA Cruiserweight Champion) would be stated. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 5:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not about the IWA title. Is about Jay Fox, notable or no notable? A wrestler who doesn't appeared in sources isn't notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He does appear in sources. Unfortunatly, since he hasn't been part of many angles, his only apperance in sources is in his adopted gimmick El Lucha' Phoenix Star. No, he doesn't appear as Jay Fox, but it's because he was only news "relevant" as El Lucha' because that was his main push, but unfortunatly he got onjured in july 2007 and lost mainstream attention, and it's the reason thats the only name that appears. I'm sure once he comes back the name will be out there alot more. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 7:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless more sources appear. PRwrestlinganalyst, please provide more links to sources discussing El Lucha. One is not enough for WP:GNG. starship.paint ~ regal 05:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell this fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that he meets WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Jacobus[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Title is very minor. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source is a link to his boxing record and he fails to meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically an unsourced BLP about a boxer who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shandon Sahm[edit]

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

Should be a re-direct to Meat Puppets; no evidence or assertion of notability outside that band. Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that the Shandon Sahm entry should be a re-direct to the Meat Puppets entry. Besides Sahm being a member of the Meat Puppets for 10 years (and is a current member), as it states on the discography in the Sahm entry, in addition to playing on 6 albums by the band, he has also played on other artist's recordings, including an album by the singer of the Butthole Surfers, an album by Sir Douglas Quintet, a tribute album for Roky Erickson, among other artists' recordings. I also feel it makes sense for the Meat Puppets' notable members past and present to have their own Wikipedia entry, as they continue to be a very respected and influential band to this day. Gregp22 | Talk 2:14, 4 November 2014 (EST)

Keep The Shandon Sahm entry should stay. The work with the Butthole Surfers singer Gregp22 is referring to is "Gibby Haynes And His Problem", which was both an album and a touring band ca. 2004. Besides the extensive body of work mentioned, Shandon Sahm has also released two solo albums and has another in the works. Temporary Meat Puppets drummer Ted Marcus has a Wikipedia page and he was only with the band briefly, and has no recordings other than the two Meat Puppets albums he appeared on. Ragnarofl (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment first see WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why it is irrelevant that the Ted Marcus article exists. Second, WP:MUSICBIO is the appropriate guideline here.--ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment under WP:MUSICBIO, Shandon Sahm meets the #5 item listed for "Criteria for musicians and ensembles," which is "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." See Discography for the proof. Gregp22 | Talk 4:47, 4 November 2014 (EST)
- Comment Since it's established that Shandon Sahm meets the criteria under WP:MUSICBIO, the article should no longer be up for deletion. Please rectify. 18:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Ragnarofl (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whoever is under the impression that a Shandon Sahm Wikipedia page isn't necessary is someone who is need of a serious history lesson in the world of music. Why should it be forwarded to the band's page when there many other projects Shandon has been involved in. Not to mention it's not even his first time in this band. What's next, are people going to want a Shandon Sahm Wikipedia page to go directly to the Golden Lies article? Half the problem with Wikipedia is the people who think they're the Wiki-Police and here to save the world from clicking another link. If the higher ups at Wiki decide to remove it that's one thing. But am I actually sitting here having to explain why the drummer of a seminal Rock Band needs a Wikipedia page? I mean, I'd love to know a little more about the guy but every time I tried in the past I found myself forwarded to the Meat Puppets page which I (and most fans) have memorized. Furthermore, Derrick Bostrom has a page and he has distanced himself from the band. Why not forward his page to the Meat Puppets page? Derrick is more important than Shandon? Which one is needed to have the band still around in 2014: the guy who quit when things got tough or the guy who is currently lacing up the skins in the band now? The band works covers of his father's songs into their sets. I can't believe we're having this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.2.175 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Due to the nature of the !voting accounts (i.e. one has 4 edits, another has 3), I believe a reslist is certainly warranted. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They do appear to have notable works outside the band with independent items under their own name on iTunes and Amazon. KylieTastic (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as keep and discuss a redirect on the talkpage. The nominator doesn't advocate deletion, and neither does anyone else here. Why wait? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Mahfouz[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as an unsuccessful candidate in Canada's federal election of 2008, which relies almost entirely on primary sources and makes no claim of notability that would get him over WP:NPOL. For added bonus, if you go back to the article's original creation, the creating editor User:Unbiased observer234 says right in their own edit summary that the page was created by the subject's campaign, and then from there it devolved into an edit war over content that the campaign hadn't "approved" — and that edit war alone accounts for approximately two-thirds of this article's entire edit history over the entire six years since. So this was always a campaign brochure, posted by an editor with a conflict of interest, for a person who doesn't pass any of our inclusion standards in the first place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They don't really appear to be noteworthy past being in a single election and coming second (but not even a close second), which is hardly a foundation for an article. Plus the links are mostly junk: repeated links, several dead links, one has no mention of them, one has a minor mention of them. The article appears to have no real worth. KylieTastic (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrawn and no other delete !votes. Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Studies in Southern Africa[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (just one or two comprehensive services). Only 1 independent source (review of a special issue in a journal that itself is not notable either). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now it should meet WP:NJournals for criterion 1, having added more details about where it is indexed and where it is accredited.Virgamesh (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no, it doesn't. None of the mentioned indexing services is even close to being 'or do I think that the "accreditation" means much. --Randykitty (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the accreditation system exists only in few countries, but if a journal is accredited it means that it meets specific scientific criteria that attest that journal as important in its field. Sorry, it's my first article so I am trying to understand the process. It seems to me very similar to other similar article such us this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spunti_e_ricerche Virgamesh (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's in the MLA International Bibliography per [6]; @Randykitty: -- "accreditation" in this context means being listed on accepted journal lists -- which are used in some countries to determine whether the references "count" for national assessments of research quality.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jodi, that's an interesting link, never heard of ADAT before. I don't put much weight on those accreditation lists, which, if you think about it, are being compiled by really small research communities (how many Italian studies researchers will there be in Australia?) However, the MLA listing is more important and we have kept journal articles before on the basis of being listed there, so I am Withdrawing this nom. --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starking[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to be notable - looks more like an attempt at promotion rather than encyclopedic content. KylieTastic (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Skype History (software)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the closest thing to outside reference I find is a partial sentence in a two-paragraph article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of the page: Delete Skype History (software)[edit]

Seanwud (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Hi Ahecht, today you marked my first wiki page Delete_Skype_History_(software) for deletion. As far as I understand the reason is that it contained references to the program web-site. I've removed the reference in the article body. Is it Ok now or I should review something in addiotion?[reply]

@Seanwud:That wasn't the reason it was nominated. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delete Skype History (software) for more information. Your article didn't establish the notability of the software, which must be done by providing references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. —Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht:Thanks for pointing me to the real reason. I've created the article as the programs have a big number of thankful users who want to recommend the applications to others. I've reviewed similar articles at Wikipedia and don't fully understand why you consider our software is less notable. The programs offer unique features (that no other software does) and, in deed and not in name, sometimes save our customers in very delicate situations. Probably you haven't found many relaible external references as the program name contains normal English words and there are many discussions on Internet using these words. Independent software reviews have been published on industry-influencing web-sites, e.g., [7] and we expect several others soon. Therefore I want to ask you to leave the article for a couple of weeks and then reevaluate the software significance. - Seanwud (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seanwud: Softpedia is not an independent source, it's user-generated content, as they simply publish whatever the submitter of the software writes (I know, I have my own software published there). Your article needs to show what other people are saying about your software, not what the software publisher says about it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht:In general, you are right about submitter's content at softpedia. But I would never point you to such article if I said the independent editor (Mihaela Citea) wrote the review. And be sure we didn't request the overview. Examples of our descriptions are [8] and [9]. If you like, I will collect a list of independent overviews for your convenience. And if the programs help users to resolve their particular needs, i.e., protect their privacy, why don't give the uses a chance to read the article (written in a neutral language without any promotion voice) and supplement it with their opinions? Seanwud (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the features is actually not relevant to whether it gets included in Wikipedia; this is not software review or recommendation website. This article is not being compared to other articles on this website that you may be reviewing; I can guarantee you that there are articles here that do not live up to our standards, and we will not be ignoring this one simply because we haven't gotten to those yet. If you wish to see Wikipedia standards rewritten so that they do not include notability, well, the Articles For Deletion page of an article for a product you wish to promote is not an effective place to be doing that. Changing a guideline like that would require the participation of the larger community, not the mere discussion of the few editors on a single AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler:Thanks, Nat, for your opinion and clarification. I like Wikipedia as is and don't want to change its fundamental rules (nice that you've mentioned that option). For better understanding, we've found a unique solution and this helps lots of people. I'd like to think the article isn't promotional but rather should show the solution to other people. If the programs have 5-10 independent reviews more, would you consider it notable enough? - Seanwud (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking to show your solution to people is pretty much the definition of promotional (and, I should note, Wikipedia would actually make a very poor method for doing so; it's not the sort of thing people seem to come to an encyclopedia for, they're unlikely to type the name of your software into the Wikipedia search field, and if they type the name of your product into Google, wouldn't you rather they be steered to some place where they can actually get the product?) But no, 5-10 more independent reviews wouldn't meet what we traditionally look for if they are user-generated reviews rather than coming from respected/significant edited/curated sites. (This isn't just a software thing; in books, dozens of reviews of Goodreads is not as meaningful as one in the New York Times Book Review.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Softpedia, with a 'buy now' link on the review page, cannot be considered independent. A search turned up no RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Sandilya[edit]

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

No notability, no sources. A lot of the other pages linked in the box at the bottom are similarly unsourced and feature mostly boilerplate praise for these people. JMiserez (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero material available online, apart from a facebook post. None of the claimed notabilities could be sourced, seemigly hoaxish. --Soman (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason for notability--Mevagiss (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prothom Kadam Phool. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deke Deke Chole Gechhi[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prothom Kadam Phool. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:26, 3 November 2014 (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 15:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Discussions regarding merging/redirection can take place in the appropriate discussion forum. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair[edit]

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

There is some place for a discussion of the role facial hair plays in American politics, and the (at present somewhat disorganized) essay which serves as introduction has the citations to prove that. The list itself, however, is junk, from which I've already excised several questionable entries. Everything interesting in it is reported in a single sentence in the intro, and the text makes clear that being president and having (or lacking) whiskers is a (largely originally researched) footnote to the real topic. I would welcome suggestion of a merge target or a new name for the article, but the list has to go. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's interesting and informative. Czolgolz (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the extensive evidence of notability presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair. The "keep" result in that AfD was manifestly correct and no substantial reason is presented to revisit it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Afd doesn't exist to resolve problems in articles, it exists to decide if a topic is notable and eligible for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Even if this topic seems silly, a quick Google search shows that the topic of facial hair in US politics is clearly notable, thus needs to be kept. If there are problems with the article, they should be fixed. Since the topic of facial hair in US politics seems to be the focal point, more than the list itself, I might suggestion moving it to Facial hair in US politics or something similar. Maybe even Facial hair ceiling (see this), if that term is often used. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing seems pretty thorough. The table did look a little sad so I scrapped it and made a new one with images, sorting, some additional information, etc. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator was present at the last discussion when his views were not supported by the general consensus. In this nomination, there are suggestions of merger or renaming but these would neither require nor benefit from deletion. See WP:SK, "proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Andrew (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The article may have decayed over time and needed re-improvement, which has been done, but as I said in the 1st AFD four years ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure, this is without question a notable topic. I cannot believe this would be nominated again!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a list supporting a topic deemed notable by the prevalence of reliable sources. Easy keep. Ivanvector (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Pierce Hughes[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject of this BLP, do not believe the page meets GNG or AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 15:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Guardian, Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not turning up the substantial coverage that would be needed to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Jensen-Jarolim[edit]

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

Created by connected editor or subject themselves, User:Jensen-Jarolim. Appears to be a purely promotional/autobiographical article on the subject's scientific publications and career. All references are publications by the subject, and do not meet WP:GNG as we don't have significant coverage of the person in independent sources. Should be a pretty straightforward deletion since we don't consider academic researchers notable just for having publications. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. We've got enough to establish notability for a small stub-like article. Other discussions here are related to due weight which are better discussed outside an AfD. At this point, probably best to see what we can do with the article for awhile. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has headed an institute at a university and was the first of a projected four professorial appointments to a prestigious new research institute that is a collaboration between that university and two others. I've substantiated some of the career points from one of several official faculty pages for her: others are this and this. (This is an allergy practice she is a member of; it backs up more of the education dates.) I found a newspaper article about her, an interview in a national physicians' journal/newsletter, and she was interviewed about her research field on national television in a series on science; I've added these to the article, and they represent a good degree of media coverage for an academic. I've also extensively edited the article to make it less promotional, although there is still a sea of citations of papers she has published. In addition to her being covered in reliable sources and holding important academic positions, her research may also have made enough of an impact to satisfy that criterion under WP:PROF: her work on birch pollen and/or on AllergoOncology. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to comfortably meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Problems with promotion in the article should be solved by editing, not deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She does seem to meet notability requirements and is written in an encyclopedic tone and does not seem promotional. It would be nice, though, to have a process for {{request edit}} by the user who seems to be the subject of the article - and several of the sources are journal articles in which she was an author or her web page. It would be better to find secondary sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came back to see if I could quickly updates some of the references - and it appears that there are a lot of primary sources, where the subject was a co-author of the articles / papers. I thought that what are needed are secondary sources that discuss the findings from the initial published report. And her CV is one of the sources. It would be helpful to have input from someone who regularly works on academic articles / biographies regarding the sources for this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit this is mostly why I proposed it for deletion. I was figuring it would be better to start over from scratch if someone uninvolved thought she was truly notable under WP:YOURSELF: "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." I'll have to do it later today if no one else does, but I can go and gut the article of the primary sources you mentioned to see how it looks as it would have been done anyways with the COI issue.

I have reverted that gutting because articles at AfD should not be blanked. (And also because in your first edit you removed the newspaper article because it was in a foreign language - foreign-language sources are absolutely not inappropriate. The complete listing of her papers and books should probably be reduced to a select list, but since the information on what she researches is footnoted to them, it's a hard task to do without ... gutting the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not blanking the page, but parsing it down to what the page would be like if it was kept anyways. I was mostly removing the more direct COI edits, and non WP:MEDRS sources for medical claims to leave the low hanging fruit that could potentially be sourced. This would also give a good idea of what a base article would look like if it was kept. There's nothing wrong with editing a page during an AfD, but the issue is that we don't have a whole lot to go on from independent reliable sources in the first place. That can make it appear like the page is moving towards being blanked, but I originally left all the content intact so the whole picture could be seen with the dovetailing COI issues. Probably wouldn't have been better to seperate the two and handle that first, so I apologize for any confusion that could have lead to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and another editor appear to have been working at cross purposes. They removed the independent press reference to which many of the career points you subsequently marked as needing a citation were cited, because the source is not in English. I have now supplied the requested quotations and translations (from which I imagine it is apparent that the sentences in the article summarise what that source says; except for details of her education, which as stated above, are corroborated by her various faculty pages). This makes for a huge amount of quotation, which may lead to copyvio concerns; I would be happiest removing the quotes and translation again and leaving them in the history for those who need to check. I have in addition pared down the citations to her academic publications to the bare minimum for establishing veracity and notability; again, those I deleted are in the history. I have however reinstated the non-academic account of her research; this does not fall under MEDRS because the article is not about allergies and cancer, and it is needed as a (partly) independent source further attesting to her notability. One cannot remove both her publications because they are primary sources and external mentions of her research because they are not reliable sources in medical articles and nonetheless expect notability to be demonstrated by citation of sources. Hopefully what I've done makes it clearer what she's done, that she's been written about, and what her research is about. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep she is plenty notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics. there were COI problems but we can overcome them. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Other than the nominator, I don't see anyone else seriously arguing for deletion. Rather, there seems to be a consensus to keep. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verandah, Isle of Man[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; content should be merged into the history of the TT races; and/or a description of the whole course Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nomination to keep the article as it has encyclopaedic value. The Snaefell Mountain Course is unusual in its length at 37.73 miles. Articles describing certtain parts of the course has value. The Verandah a series of bends on the A18 Sneafell Mountain Road is an important part of the circuit. There has been discussions by other contributors on Isle of Man TT notce boards about how the history of the Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix should be developed. Merging into a general description of the course or the history of the Isle of Man TT would be over-long and unhelpful and avoid some previous problems of multiple contributions by different editors. Agljones 11:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep Historically a sigificant viewing point which is shown on outline course maps. I have added some content and sources, but, regrettably, I moved-on through ebay some years back all of my post-1979 sources including some copious course guides and I'm not confident of turning anything 1960s up in the house, but some should be available - suggest refimprove tag rather than AfD.
The Isle of Man government in conjunction with TV coverage have invested heavily to provide programming on free-to-air channels and the TV commentators regularly mention any TT course vantage point when adding voice-overs, often to footage from on-bike cameras and heli-cam, particularly on these mountain sections where the bikes are faster than the 'copters.
Therefore the main vantage points should have searchable separate articles, IMO. The main structure has already been established, so it would be counter-productive to delete a few - the three which have been proposed for deletion would rate at 11-20 on a scale of importance starting at 1, but I would also advocate that some should be consolidated, eg Bedstead Corner to be combined with nearby The Nook, Isle of Man as a prime candidate being historic but minor, not major viewing points (this latter comment for the above editor).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had the opportunity to go through contributions to ascertain that the same editor has nominated for deletion - or intends to nominate - many more TT Course locations than I originally surmised.

From the AfD list below, the majority are arguably 'world famous'; the other three are minor and could be retained and merged into preceding and following locations as appropriate, with name-changes and redirects. The standard of the content is often poor.

Gardener's Lane
Ballahutchin Hill
Glenlough

User @Agljones: has striven, along with others, to establish articles which should be retained and improved. Using the catch-all ploy of 'notability' is inappropriate where consecutive historic physical localities are involved.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Diffs below from the nominating editor dated 3 November on landmark TT locations - the whole doesn't work with pieces of the jigsaw missing. Taken together indicates a concerted effort at retrograde deletions concerning a series of related articles.
Some articles could be merged together and remain searchable, but not imported into over-lengthy articles such as "the history of the TT races; and/or a description of the whole course" as stated in the nomination.
Admittedly the stubs are poor and often have been abandoned, but other forms of banner-waving would be more sensible and possibly more productive - I haven't the time to monitor and improve, at least for the remainder of 2014.
Sulby - "rm infobox, pending its deletion"
B'garrow - "replace infobox, pending its deletion"
Glen Vine - "rm infobox, pending its deletion"--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF has not been suspended. The "its" in "its deletion" refers to {{Infobox Isle of Man TT course}}, not the articles. It's also tiresome to see that you've posted the above at multiple locations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I already figured that out; articles can have more than one infobox. Where there is a village article existing, it needs a section developing, deletion is not the way forward. As stated, I don't have the time to do it; I can envisage the format of improvements, but it's unlikely to eventuate with the risk of one individual making a unilateral decision to delete and it's too much trouble for others to get involved in. Once again, Wikipedia is the sufferer.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Verandah is not a village; it is, the article under discussion informs us, "a series of bends on the primary A18 road" - and a series of bends for which no evidence of notability has been offered. I have just replied to your identical comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner#Windy Corner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per ESPN Verandah appears to be a Dead Man's Curve in motorcycle racing as a site of fatalities and hence most likely notable. In kind of a macabre way. Covered in a major third-party publication; article itself close to Start Class. Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The article Verandah, Isle of Man has notability as it is a well known part of the Isle of Man TT Course. It is also important to the history of the Isle of Man TT Races after a fatal accident to a competitor that resulted in the Isle of Man TT races losing its World Championship status. It is also a part of the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road which is an important major road in the Isle of Man and therefore has notability and also has encyclopaedic value. In 2007, I rewrote the Wikipedia article for the Snaefell Mountain Course and removed a long list of names of corners as it had been plagiarised from a publication about the Isle of Man TT races including a number of inaccuracies and incorrect information. The current format of the Wikipedia article has a much improved structure and information can be easily added when it becomes available and due to its success has been translated into other languages on Wikipedia. To return to the previous 2007 format for the Snaefell Mountain Course is not a viable alternative. I created separate articles for each of the more famous parts of the Isle of Man TT Course. However, other contributors have added extra articles and then abandoned them without trying to extend the articles or improving them. I have had problems with editing conflicts of many Isle of Man TT articles including incorrect information and problems with editing style. It may not be understood by editors reviewing many articles about the Isle of Man TT Races it is difficult to find and research information and present it in a way to provide encyclopaedic value or to conform with Wikipedia editing standards and rules. Many of the articles that you refer to have been deliberately written in a style that is low-key in respect to the fatal accidents to competitors during the Isle of Man TT Races and Manx Grand Prix Races. Also, there has been personal problems, editing conflicts and problems with trying to maintain the low-key style with contributors and editors in regard to the Wikipedia article the list of fatal accidents to competitors on the Snaefell Mountain course. I have tried to maintain a certain style for these Isle of Man TT articles and there has been previous problems of multiple contributions by different editors and some Isle of Man TT articles have been subject to a Wikipedia deletion policy and then later successfully reinstated. I am currently in the process of a complete rewrite of the main Wikipedia Isle of Man TT and the proposed amalgamation/deletion process is unhelpful. Agljones 21:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saajan. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bahut Pyar Karte Hain (Male)[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saajan. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiye To Jiye Kaise (Part 2)[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable source. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saajan. While pre-1990s Indian topics can be difficult to source, under WP:ATD we can at least send readers to where they can learn about this song in context to the notable film in which it was featured. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear G11. Straightforward advertisement, DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Kline[edit]

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

Page clearly intended for promotion/advertising of individual's business activity. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page only promoting self and has no notability. Hence should be deleted.Lakun.patra (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Lakun.patra[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Both the weight of the opinions here and the essay WP:MMANOT, which does in my experience carry some weight, argue against inclusion here, indicate this result. --j⚛e decker ^talk 08:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pannie Kianzad[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter with few fights and non-Top tier. Does not meet WP:MMANOT or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the above from Patrick Jenkinson by looking at "Criteria supporting notability according to WP:MMANOT". Pannie Kianzad is considered one of the hottest prospects outside of the UFC. Both Swedish and European interest is big, even american outlets have written about her (first criteria). This weekend she's fighting for bantamweight title at Cage Warriors 74 in the co-main event (second criteria). She has fought for Superior Challenge (Scandinavias largest MMA-organisation), Cage Warriors (Europes largest MMA-organisation) and PRO FC (a large Russian MMA-organization) (third criteria). In other words, she's notable enough to have a wikipedia page in english.

The notability criteria for MMA fighters can be found at WP:NMMA, which is under WP:NSPORTS.Mdtemp (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Being a "prospect" is a sure sign someone is not yet notable.Mdtemp (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Kianzad fulfills criteria 2 of WP:NMMA on Saturday when she fights for the bantamweight title at Cage Warriors - the premier organisation in Europe. ^[1] 22:49, 11 November User:Patrick Jenkinson

^ http://www.mmaviking.com/eeva-siiskonen-steps-in-to-face-pannie-kianzad-for-cage-warriors-belt/

Cage Warriors is not top tier. You might want to look at WP:MMATIER. Mdtemp (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cage Warriors, whilst not UFC-level, is the biggest European organisation by far. Fighting for their belt isn't a joke. John Firth (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- She's now Cage Warriors Bantamweight champion, so I think she now counts for definite.John Firth (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one said it's a joke, but it isn't top tier either. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Many MMA fighters with second tier titles have been deleted. I'm not convinced by people ignoring consensus and creating their own notability criteria simply because WP:ILIKEIT. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ "Kianzad is ranked 19th in the world as a bantamweight[6] and 3rd among bantamweights outside of UFC[7]. Kianzad is the highest ranked bantamweight in Europe.[8]" - That has to count for something = Top Tier. For European women Cage Warriors is as "top tier" as it gets and would say it is equal to Invicta FC (USA) and better than Jewelz (Japan). She is the champion of the organization that produced Conor McGregor as two time champion. I'm beginning to feel a bias towards anything not UFC or American. And a bias because she is a women. She has beaten Milana Dudieva that is in the UFC. Patrick Jenkinson (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your latest vote because you're only allowed 1 vote per discussion, although you can comment as often as you like. I realize this is basically the only article you've edited in nearly 3 years, but you're still not supposed to make up your own notability criteria. Unilaterally declaring something to be top tier when there's already a consensus is considered to be bad form. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sorry if I overstepped some kind of boundary, not my intention. But I don't agree that there is a consensus, just a majority towards a stand point. But I strongly feel that Kianzad fulfills the criteria and that there is a bias against anything not American. three out of four organizations that are classed as top tier are from the USA. No European organization? It is ridiculous that anything not UFC, Invicta, Bellator is not top tier. Cage Warriors have multiple shows around the world and have signed the very best fighters on the European scene. I strongly feel the bias against our part of the world. But even greater there is a bias against women in MMA. For example - why has UCMMA champ Georgio Andrews a wiki page that isn't contested? UCMMA is a smaller organisation and classed as second tier. I believe it is based on gender when it comes to Kianzad and that is a shame. User:Patrick Jenkinson

I don't understand your argument. The page you're referring to on Georgio Andrews is a redlink, which means it doesn't exist. As far as consensus goes, the discussion about MMA notability was a long and contentious one with many editors taking part--including a number from Europe. If you wish to argue for a change in the MMA notability criteria, an AfD discussion is not the proper place. Papaursa (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Frmorrison (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Their Helmets they left ( 2014 Documeantry)[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this documentary exists. Feel free to nominate it as G3 if confirmed to be a hoax. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if by any chance the article is kept, the title needs major fixing........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Hard to choose between G1 and G3 because it's hard to figure out what the thing is actually called. In any case it also has WP:CRYSTAL issues given that it refers to something that supposedly will be released. As CtD says, the title is hopeless anyway so nothing is lost by having the article recreated from scratch under a valid name. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are articles for three of the men mentioned Mike Burgmann, Mark Porter (racing driver), Ashley Cooper (racing driver). They did not die at the same race and only Cooper died an the Adelaide 500 (Clipsal 500). What I couldn't find was any info about a documentary about them under this or any other title. MarnetteD|Talk 03:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing to consider is that, with less than two months left in 2014, there should be some evidence of this film somewhere. It is possible that the article creator may be cobbling something together for youtube but that is sheer WP:OR on my part. MarnetteD|Talk 04:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The mis-spelling does not help, but not having even listing a director hurts searches. The one run-on sentence can always be recreated and a decent article written if notability can ever be established. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. As M and MQS point out should any legit info be found about this project a new article can be created. MarnetteD|Talk 18:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Lazaar[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet either WP:KICK or WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:KICK and WP:GNG since he doesn't meet any kickboxing notability criteria and coverage consists solely of fight announcements and results.Mdtemp (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the previous comments. I don't see anything to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, No indication of significance. The conflict over just how to remove this articles seems unusual, but the simplest thing to do now is to just end it. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Express Corporation[edit]

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

Speedy delete under A7: Article does not indicate why company is important or significant. (Sorry for bringing this to AfD, but another editor removed A7 for mistaken reasons, and I don't want to edit war over it.) —teb728 t c 09:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete one sentence stub. No indication of notability, no reliable sources found. --Lemnaminor (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can't even find any unreliable sources that discuss the company, let alone reliable ones. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not sure this company even exists. Google doesn't even find a unreliable reference for it. There is a Blue Express Inc, but that is Chinese. There is a facebook page for them here, filled with photoshopped images of skyscrapers and aircraft with their logo. I think this is all a hoax. JTdale ^Talk 15:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G-3. There is very little evidence that the subject of the article exists. OK this is a bit of a mess and its partly my fault, mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa. I removed the original CSD tag for three reasons (my edit summary got cut off). First because the article had only been in existence for about two minutes when it was tagged, secondly it appeared to be a case of WP:BITE, and lastly a single sentence blandly stating something exists does not constitute unambiguous advertising, a fact I embarrassingly did not note in my chopped summary. However, I failed to look deeply into the matter and after doing a search this morning it's fairly clear there is not a snowball's chance in hell that this will meet our standards. I also have to note user:Rajesh Kumar Adhwani Ji, who has a track record of creating dicey articles, is for some reason aggressively trying to interfere with this AfD. I suggest a Speedy Close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#A7 - tagged as such. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goverlan Remote Control Software[edit]

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

blatant ad for a non-notable software product created by a single purpose account with a very serious conflict of interest. No reliable secondary sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PJ Technologies and WP:Articles for deletion/Goverlan VNC Viewer for closely related AfD discussions. Another related article by this user, WMIX Software, is currently PROD'ed. Lemnaminor (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Conflict of interest issues aside, I can find no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Carlsberg[edit]

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

Seemingly unnotable actress. Only two credits to her name, one a minor role, and one a bigger role in an unnotable film. No significant coverage in reliable sources found in my pre-nomination searches. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Proposed deletion was declined in 2011 so bringing here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. Deb (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability standards. All that this actress may merit is mention as cast in two film article, but not a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thrive+[edit]

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

Not sure it is notable Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant advertising. No evidence of meaningful notability (i.e. evidence that any credible third-party source considers it a cure for anything), and makes claims regarding medicinal effects not backed up by WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MEDRS. That author has an obvious financial WP:COI and the intention of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. His contributions show several attempts to link his product as intext spam in several articles such as Hangover and Ampelopsin. Ochiwar (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Blatant advertising by an editor with an obvious COI. Lemnaminor (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Agree with the above. COI is especially troubling. Carlos Rivas (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep None one here is making the connection that this is a PRODUCT, not a medical treatment. I would expect more from Wikipedian editors. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services. With this said, there is no soapbox promotion here. Read the article, it shows significant differences in rhetoric from advertising, so the term "blatant advertising" here shows distinct ignorance to advertising language. Concerning "no evidence that any credible third-party source considers it a cure for anything, please consider the fact that Sam Wang (neuroscientist), one of the leading neuroscientists at Princeton, said: “It looked like there was real scientific evidence for it, and so that was interesting to me because that made it different from other supplements and extracts.” Yet again, because this is a company product, it's effectiveness has nothing to do with notability or WP:MEDRS, please quit conflating the two. On conflict of interest, this usually can be a negative thing, but the article does not read advertorial at all. What I am failing to understand is how this article could be different than Hangover Heaven. They are both product/services, and that article has even less sourcing from someone like Sam Wang than this article. I also am failing to understand how when we get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangover#Potentially_beneficial_remedies, that the potentially beneficial remedies are listed, but when someone combines most of them together, people start all kinds of calls on WP:MEDRS--even again though this article is not based on efficacy, but about a notable product in multiple sources (such as being shown on TV, Princeton's newspaper, Houston's major newspaper, conservative entrepreneur papers, and currently underway, the Trenton Times (NJ.com). As a Princeton student, I can safely say that these arguments don't fit the bill and would be criticized by professors. They almost seem to be spam in themselves. Please be careful and be more considerate in what your doing. There seems to be a conservative bias and an discontinuity of judgement across articles from some editors. Please start applying an equal hand and either fix or remove some articles, or be more lenient in some articles coming in. Brookspowell629 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services, note that it reads "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself..." None of the sources cited establish that the company behind this supposed 'cure' meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. In fact, none of the sources seem to even mention the name of any company.

<- comment inserted into the middle of my post by User:Brookspowell629 in violation of talk page guidelines removed AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC) ->[reply]

And for the benefit of the closer of this discussion, it should be noted that the 'Princeton student' behind this product is Brooks Powell, something that User:Brookspowell629 has failed to make clear above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments to Ochiwar below. Brookspowell629 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629[reply]

Delete. There is a little bit of arguably independent news coverage but from I what I've seen it's essentially a community paper and the Daily Princetonian; otherwise the relevant coverage appears to be press releases and publicity. The Prince article is a decent one, but it's not enough to meet our usual standards for the notability of commercial products, health-related or otherwise. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 - tagged as such Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the deletion discussion as already well underway in AfD I suggest we do not speedy so to avoid the article falling under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions in further development. Ochiwar (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, as evidenced by lack of reliable sourcing. -- Scray (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately there just isn't enough coverage out there for this product to merit an article at this point in time. Of the sources in the article, the best one (The Daily Princetonian) would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source since Powell is a Princeton student and any affiliated paper would of course have an interest in representing one of their own in a positive light. As far as claims go, you need to understand that what User:AndyTheGrump was saying is that there hasn't seemed to be any true secondary testing at this point in time to back up the claims in the article. Saying that a Princeton scientist has backed up any of the supplement's claims would not really hold much water in many communities because while the institution is venerated, there is still the worry that a Princeton scientist would be more inclined to say positive things about something a Princeton student created. But of course the fact still remains that whether or not the product works is somewhat irrelevant as far as this AfD goes- it's more likely to gain coverage if it does work, but it's not a guarantee. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't show concern about what claims are made in an article because until it is deleted, we need to make sure that the article is as accurate as possible. That aside, the other sources don't really show much notability either as they are pretty much local papers and while that doesn't mean that they can't be useful, they are sometimes depreciated because some will consider them to be local interest type stories. I'm not entirely fond of that idea, but when all we really have are local news stations giving superficial "local interest" type treatment to a story, that doesn't really show an assertion of notability. On a side note, I am concerned that this article was apparently made by the product's creator, who did not state any COI when he began making the article. Mr. Powell, transparency is one of the most important values to have when editing Wikipedia and in general, as people can very easily get ridiculed if it appears that they were trying to promote themselves and were not transparent about everything in the process.User:Tokyogirl79 05:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I also point out that in his comment, Princeton neuroscientist Sam Wang was not referring to Thrive+ as claimed by Mr.Powell but to Dihydromyricetin, and he was basing his comments on a study performed in rats, which says nothing about its efficacy or safety in humans. Mr.Powell is either distorting the facts, or engaging in synthesis unworthy of a Princeton student. Ochiwar (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ochiwar, thank you for the long response. I apologize that I did not state up front that I am involved with the product, I thought the clear and easy to notice connection between "Brooks Powell" and Brookspowell629 would make that clearly known. I had read somewhere that it was not absolutely against the rules for someone behind a product or company to publish an article on what they know if they did so in an objective, and non-promotional way. I tried to do my best, and others, including you, have come along to help this read as non-promotional, so thank you. I didn't realize that there was an explicit reveal/notice clause to posting something you are involved with. Hence, why I am not embarrassed that it is clear that my username is Brookspowell629, and the article is partly about the inventor of a product named Brooks Powell, it was never meant to be hidden in the first place. Concerning Sam Wang's quote, Dihydromyricetin is the main ingredient in Thrive+. Because it is the ingredient with the neurological function, he chose to talk about it, implying that Thrive+ is at least effective for the neurological function which he attributes to it. Concerning the rat studies and human efficacy translation, please see his quote in http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/kingwood/news/princeton-student-from-kingwood-develops-supplement-aimed-at-reducing-hangovers/article_c8240c02-e687-5a76-ba54-7f3bb6e68e60.html: "The evidence for DHM comes from two sources: human experience in Eastern medicine, and peer-reviewed lab experiments showing that it can counter the effects of intoxication and withdrawal in lab animals. At the level of receptor molecules, rats and humans are highly similar.” And that: "The appeal of DHM is twofold: it acts on that receptor, so, it blocks alcohol’s ability to do its work on the brain. Second, DHM is a natural product and raises fewer concerns that it might have unanticipated effects on the brain and body.” Also, please notice that there is 7 total examples of notability on Thrive+ just between August and now, two of which being Houston TV channels. More are currently in the pipeline, such as a front pager due to come out this weekend in NJ. How many are required for notability? If it requires significantly more than this then I feel many Wikipedia articles are in Jeopardy. Concerning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services, "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." This means that the company does not need to be notable (ie: all the articles refer to it) for its product to be notable. It also says at the top: "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.'" I think there is ample evidence for Thrive+ "attracting notice." Please tell me your thoughts/reconsider your decisions. Thanks! Brookspowell629 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629[reply]

Please note that the long response above is not from me but from User:Tokyogirl79 as can be seen in this diff. for some reasons her signature did not show and I have now added it to avoid confusion. Ochiwar (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable promotion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than the technical issues raised, this article apparently violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. The article is about a work by Brooks Powell written by Brookspowell629 and defended only by the writer. Even if B. Powell is aother person it still is a non-NPOV. Other points to consider:

No clinical record on its efficacy, market record, hence the product could be totally useless.
If B. Powell claims that he "began thinking about the viability of using Dihydromyricetin to treat hangover" (all refs dated 2014), he is either seriously ignorant of scientific development, or deliberately trying to self-credit an already known idea/fact. In 2012 Chinese scientists and their collaborators demonstrated that dihydromyricetin indeed has anti-hangover effects (e.g. [10] and [11]); and Powell was not among them. Chhandama (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chhandama, your comments are appreciated. The wording of the sentence now reflects your comments. I think it was originally supposed to read about DHM and viability of bringing to market. Could you please explain to me how many sources there needs to be in order for something to be notable? Brookspowell629 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629[reply]

It is the type of source not the number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brookspowell629, I find you quite amusing. Firstly, you are the B. Powell, and you violate the Wikipedia policies I have linked above. Please do read them before you make further comments, or the Welcome section of your talk page. In short, you are not to write about you. Secondly, this news item says your neuroscience teacher Samuel Wang commented you as "a very strong student who grasped important points quickly," but I think to the contrary. You lack the neurological capacity to understand. Thirdly, notability can be supported by a single good source. Your invention is not unique or notable, as a quick search will show that there are, perhaps better, brands that actually sell your kind of product (see [12], [13], [14], and the original Chinese make. These brand names may be mentioned in dihydromyricetin, but we certainly don't need them as separate articles. The same goes for your article too. Chhandama (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chhandama, thank you for your comments, but it may serve you well to read No personal attacks. Your comments seem to fit this bill. However, based on what you just said, that is like comparing 5-hour Energy to 6-Hour Power, and all the other products like it. Just because there are multiple products that can be seen as similar doesn't mean they are all not notable. Upon some preliminary searches, I can't find press for any of these products, whereas for Thrive+ there is 8+. On the COI, that is clear, as I have stated above and have apologized for. But that does not discredit something from notability. For the newest press, please see: http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2014/11/enjoy_tonight_thrive_tomorrow_princeton_university_junior_develops_three-pill_hangover_cure.html. I am not sure what other kind of sources could be needed for a product. (Again, noting that this article is about a product/service, not a medical treatment.)

Brookspowell629 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Dioxide (band)[edit]

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

I suspect this is a hoax, but it needs more input. After all, the claimed age of Jim Cummings in 1969 matches his birthdate, as well as being in Ohio. If true, the claimed influences are a good claim to notability. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...but I'd be prepared to be proven wrong. Difficult, if not impossible, to search for because there's some chemical compound showing up in the result. Nevertheless, I tried as many combinations and modifiers as I could, and came up with nada. I'll go with hoax too unless someone shows otherwise. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a substub failing WP:V/WP:RS/WP:NMUSIC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Any band claiming to inspire Pentagram, Saint Vitus AND Electric Wizard would have sources all over Google. But this doesn't. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax Jac16888 ^Talk 21:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Swift[edit]

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

I am unable to find third-party references about this 16 year old Brasilian singer, songwriter and model. This is surprising since he claims to have composed songs for and performed songs with Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus, and topped the charts for multiple weeks. A quick look at his YouTube page casts very serious doubt on the sentence "began to build a following online". I see no sign that he meets the notability requirements for biographies The related articles on his albums and singles should be deleted for the same reasons: they are fantasy, not fact. For instance Day Of Christmas and Big Finnies claims 3 million downloads and a top 3 position in the Hot 100. Pichpich (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete:- Complete balant hoax and no sign of notabilty for him. Ireneshih (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This sounds like a work of fiction. 13 of the 16 references in the article go to a Tumblr account. That pretty much says it all. Non-notable and no reliable sources to back up any claims in the article. CommanderLinx (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RTQE[edit]

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

Radio program which airs on a single station in a single media market, making no claim (e.g. syndication) that would get it over WP:NMEDIA and citing no reliable source coverage to support either NMEDIA or a WP:GNG claim. The fact that it's also podcasted doesn't boost its notability, as there's no reliable sourcing covering that aspect either. It might qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but in this form it's effectively just an unsourced advertisement. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Local show airing on local "listener-sponsored" station with little or no reliable coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and current wording feels somewhat WP:PROMO. Levdr1lp / talk 04:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It belongs on the radio station's program list not as a separate article. Royal broil 14:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ballahutchin Hill[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Hall.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It will be better to merge similar articles and create a new page or use any existing page where all points are mentioned. Ireneshih (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNGACTOR; apparently an autobiography largely by two single-topic editors with a very similar pattern of editing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this sentence says it all: "With his up and coming success, Thompson learned early that the sacrifice was more than he anticipated." Bearian (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- Fails WP:Notability, no real contribution atleast for now to make him a significant actor.Ireneshih (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NACTOR. Bit parts don't equal notability. Content also seems largely closely paraphrased/copied from the iMDb bio. Cowlibob (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep indubitable notability.--Hamihaha (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Firoz[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO; autobiography. Blackguard 08:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing to suggests the subject of the article meets the notability threshold set out in both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Negative Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Awards are local. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. School magazine. No sources. No evidence of notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A World of Possibilities[edit]

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

Non notable radio show without sources or assertion of notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This MIGHT be notable. But no independent reliable sources have been presented in the six years since the previous AfD ended in keep. Unless somebody presents reliable sources indicating notabilities, I will go with the position that it is not notable. Safiel (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 2 November 2014 (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 ♔ 00:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For Chrissake, ANOTHER of those old AfDs choked with "It's syndicated so it must be notable even though there are no sources" garbage Keeps. Look, it doesn't take a brain surgeon. Are there reliable sources that meet the GNG? Great, keep. A subject is not notable until and unless those sources are produced. Glad I could clear that one up. Nha Trang 17:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Morgenstern[edit]

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

This entry has already been deleted twice via AfD. The subject doesn't meet WP:COMPOSER (the Jerry Goldsmith Awards cannot be regarded as a major competition). As regards WP:SIGCOV, the article almost entirely relies on non-independant sources. I have found only one real independant secondary source about him (https://www.landeszeitung.de/blog/kultur-lokales/196366-alles-machen-alles-koennen), but it's the website of a local newspaper (Landeszeitung für die Lüneburger Heide) and, besides, the URL indicates it's a blog (see WP:NEWSBLOG). There are also trivial mentions (see WP:SIGCOV) in books and local newspapers. Be careful not to confound him with a lawyer of the same name (Anwalt = lawyer in German). --Rocherd (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 2 November 2014 (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 ♔ 00:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing any significant sources myself. Nha Trang 17:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS establish that the subject passes WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.mmaviking.com/eeva-siiskonen-steps-in-to-face-pannie-kianzad-for-cage-warriors-belt/

[1]