Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 October	17 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Buccaneers Records[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK this article has a list of statistics that doesn't provide any reason of notability. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know that some other sports teams have franchise record pages - frankly, I think they should all be deleted, as per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK --Jersey92 (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per the above reasons. Frmorrison (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Cruz[edit]

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

I'm not sold on the notability here. Minor-league player fails WP:ATHLETE, and the sources don't quite seem to pass GNG. Wizardman 23:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent baseball player... Has some Division II accomplishments in college but D2 gets even less mainstream coverage than D1 does. Spanneraol (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Baseball Player of the Year honor seems semi-notable. Alex (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not. Reliable sources are what makes something notable, and there aren't enough here. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why we used to keep articles on the basis of "they made multiple minor league All-Star teams". Righhhhht. Alex (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Used to". That was an error that has been corrected in the AfD process, yourself notwithstanding. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't establish WP:GNG. This source is the best there is and I wouldn't call it in depth. With a bunch of deep pieces, it would be notable, but those don't exist. I'm surprised this passed WP:AFC. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Yankees10 18:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cincinnati Reds minor league players. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Félix Pérez (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player, doesn't seem to pass GNG. Wizardman 23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cincinnati Reds minor league players. Though the article has some serious NPOV issues. "one of the truly great outfielders, defensively and offensively, in AAA baseball."... Seriously?Spanneraol (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Played in the Cuban league, whose - though it isn't listed in the WP:BASE/N guidelines - level of competition is on par with Japan and likely greater than Korea. Alex (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Changing vote to Merge to Cincinnati Reds minor league players. Avoid WP:CRYSTAL blah blah blah, but I have to think a guy who has played at Triple-A for the past four years - and pretty well, most of the time - is going to make his major league debut soon. Alex (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuban league is not professional. Spanneraol (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that matters considering the quality of play. Alex (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many Cuban league games have you seen? The league doesnt get the level of coverage that the KBO and NPB get and thats what matters.Spanneraol (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuban league generally gets compared to Class A. That's not a high "quality of play". And sources are indeed limited. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When this is the best coverage I can find, I'm confident that a merge is not the best course of action. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Spanneraol. I won't spend any time typing up a critique of the arbitrary inclusion rules for baseball players. :) But this article on its own doesn't have any references to speak of, and that's a problem. But having played in the Cuban National Series is enough for me for him to have a write-up in the merged-to article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd normally say delete, but considering he played in Cuba i'll say merge.--Yankees10 18:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Texas Rangers minor league players. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kellin Deglan[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player. The sourcing is decent, but it's not at "multiple reliable source" level for GNG. Wizardman 23:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well here's the question: Do the WBC qualifiers count the same as the WBC proper? He played for the Canadian team in the qualifying round, but they didn't reach the main tournament. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO no. Being on a team that didn't make it to the tournament itself is just that. Wizardman 02:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that yes, it does count, because the qualifying round is part of the tournament. But this may not have been the intention of WP:BASEBALL/N. My input is keep. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The qualifying rounds are not part of the actual WBC, they simply allow you to qualify to play in it. Spanneraol (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Change to Merge per Alex below. Spanneraol (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your basis for this assertion? The qualifiers are always referred to as a round of the tournament and it's listed as part of the tournament schedule. (see here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchaliburton (talk • contribs) 14:49, October 17, 2014

The same reason why the olympics qualifying events arent considered to be actually part of the olympics.Spanneraol (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics aren't comparable. They have separate qualifying events. The WBC does not. The qualifying round is part of the WBC as far as I can tell. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The qualifying events for the WBC take place months before the rest of the tournament, they can be considered separate events also. Spanneraol (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider them separate events, but they are not. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm curious about Spanner is why you say delete and not merge, considering that there are enough sources to at least make a credible case for GNG (though it may not make it, I'm debating between keep and merge myself). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really it's because i didn't realize he was with the Rangers... the article didn't mention it before (said he was part of the Crawdads) and i was too lazy to look into it. My bad. Spanneraol (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah gotcha. I hadn't seen the page until that was corrected, then. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Texas Rangers minor league players. Alex (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First round pick with enough coverage imo.--Yankees10 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metallic mean[edit]

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

Not notable. The only reference is to a paper written by someone 15 years ago, but not from a reliable source that I can see, just hosted on their personal web. There may be some confusion over the name as that paper seems to be using 'mean' where we'd use 'ratio' (golden ratio, silver ratio etc.) but those already have articles for them, so this is unneeded. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, Silver ratio should be deleted. Hyacinth (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silver ratio seems much more notable: it has a Mathworld entry for one which is pretty indicative and that has references. But anyway the notability of other articles is not at issue here per WP:OTHERSTUFF. I see another reference has been added to this but that is actually to the Mathworld entry Silver Ratio and says nothing about the "metallic mean"--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See: Weisstein, Eric W. "Table of silver means". MathWorld.. Hyacinth (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the references already provided, plus the book Wall, H. S. Analytic Theory of Continued Fractions, there are also applications to condensed matter physics related to aperiodic tilings, for example: [1], [2], and [3]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The third reference you give doesn't use the term "metallic". And all three seem to be self-published papers; are these preprints of articles that have actually been published somewhere with editorial oversight? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What term does the third reference given use instead of metallic? Hyacinth (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I overlooked that the Wikipedia article we're discussing uses "silver mean" as a synonym for "metallic mean". The third reference does use this synonym. My question about whether any of these terms has been used in peer-reviewed literature still stands. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychonaut: All the papers I cited have been published: [4], [5], [6]. There are numerous other such papers. I chose representative papers from three different research groups. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hyacinth (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources discovered by User:Sammy1339. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Terry Brooks#Shannara related works. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The World of Shannara[edit]

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

Unreferenced praise page for an unnotable book or booklet. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terry_Brooks#Shannara_related_works. I found one sole review from Mania, but that's about all I can find for this. Redirecting to Brooks's page would be the best option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - I completely agree with Tokyogirl79. Redirecting searches to the author and deleting the article in question makes the most sense given how little information there is about this specific book. Nyctimene (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to properly disambiguate, but keep WP:2DAB in mind if only the two cases are notable (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R v Khan[edit]

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

Unreferenced. I found some sources but less than enough to establish notability. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the sources that you found. There are quite a few reported cases called "R v Khan". It would be helpful to have more information, including details of where the case is reported and which court decided the case. James500 (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The case is discussed in this source from the University of Zululand: [7] [8]. According to that source (footnote 18 of chapter 2 and footnote 21 of chapter 3) the case is reported at 1949 (4) SA 868 (N). ["SA" is an abbreviation for South African Law Reports]. James500 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The case reported at 1949 (4) SA 868 (N) is notable. It satisfies GNG. The case appears to have been decided by the KwaZulu-Natal High Court (formerly the Natal Provincial Division) and seems therefore to also satisfy criteria 2 of WP:CASES: [9]. [The abbreviation "N" seems to refer to that court.] James500 (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R v Khan is also an obvious redirect to R. v. Khan. We do not normally delete plausible redirects on grounds of notability (WP:R). James500 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One case is about a killed animal, and the other is about a raped child. I can't follow you. Could you please explain me what sort of redirect are we talking about? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirect explains what a redirect is. We normally allow a redirect from an obvious alternative spelling of a name (including plausible misnomers). The present subject matter isn't relevant because redirecting a page involves blanking it. The two pages have the same name with slightly different punctuation. The difference between them is two full stops. [The South African case appears to be about "charge splitting" (charging a defendent with multiple offences in respect of a single act).] James500 (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The legal eagles have determined that it's notable, so: (1) add the above refs; (2) move to R v Khan (South Africa); (3) move R. v. Khan to R v Khan (Canada); (4) re-create the present page as a disambig: Noyster (talk), 11:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to do all that? Would you like me to prepare you a Turkish coffee also? :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks, I'd love one but it seems sensible to hang on until we see if (a) others agree with the proposed actions, (b) whether the article gets deleted or not: Noyster (talk), 20:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, per User:James500, but with an added request for caution. "Khan" is a reasonably common surname, and it appears that there are at least two cases that have this name. Care should be taken that only details from the "trespass and game shooting" case end up in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harmon R. Whittle[edit]

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

No independent notability other than that of Red White & Blue Beer. The article is based on a blog page. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched HighBeam and Newspapers.com to see if there were any older articles from the 1990 and 1980s, but I found nothing. There is a mention of him in a Google Book search, but nothing to establish notability for an article. I am One of Many (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close. This didnt' qualify for WP:A7, but this article is such a WP:NOT violation and is written in such a fan tone that it'd potentially qualify under other things, likely WP:G11. It doesn't really have a snowball's chance of surviving a full AfD. I'm concerned about the amount of accounts opened just to edit the page, so I'm in the process of opening up an SPI that will eventually be posted here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Sensei[edit]

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

Character in a book without an article written by an author without an article. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing the character. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 20:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Article meets none of the guidelines for notability per WP:Notability. Seems to be attempting to generate notability through creation of this article. Onel5969 (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've declined the speedy, as A7 doesn't apply to fictional characters. We don't really have any good speedy deletion options for books and fictional things. The only time we can delete something like this is if it's unambiguously promotional or if the character is so obviously created on the spot (as in something I just created right now) that it'd fall under WP:ONEDAY. This does't really qualify for either of those, although this is somewhat promotional in tone at times. That said, I'm mildly concerned about the fairly large amount of SPAs editing the article in such a short period of time. In any case, the book looks like it should be notable, so I'm going to try to find enough sources to make an article for the book. If I'm successful then I'd suggest redirecting there. If not, then it'd be a delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am, however, debating opening up an SPI for this because this looks like it's a case of 1-2 people creating quite a bit of sockpuppets for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on second thought... this article is written in such a fan style that it would have to be TNT'd. I'm going to just give it an early death now- there's no sense in dragging this out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erlend Krauser[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he played wit james last orchestra (on wich theres a wiki page) but hes not notable?maybe hes not super famous,but hes a great musician with several album and he played in a great band. on top of all i think he deserve more visibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophersad (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Christophersad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless some sources are cited, we can't consider him notable off-hand. Actually, the correct process for this page would be a BLP PROD.- Andrei (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported Request/Comment: Go slow on this proposed deletion. The article should, in my opinion, be expanded instead. Mobilecreep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilecreep (talk • contribs) 08:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC) — Mobilecreep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Subject of the article is not covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Although it has an article in Romanian Wikipedia but no single reference was present to validate its notability, just like the one we have here (on the english wikipedia). Wikicology (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) – nafSadh did say 08:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kazipur River[edit]

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

Talk page mistakenly nominated at Miscellany for Deletion. Rationale was: "This page cites no sources. The statements in it appear to be dubious, that old maps shows the Ichamati river entering the Karatoya, but the Ichamati now enters the Karatoya. I've already removed the claim that "Nalkaseganj, an important commercial centre at the junction of the two main inland waterways of the subdivision." because I can find no evidence of any such place on maps in Banglapedia or on the Web. I think this page is a hoax." Original nomination by Sminthopsis84 Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the research of Jakob and Sminthopsis84, below.~~Weak delete~~. I couldn't find any reliable references to this river in English (except what appeared to be text copied from Wikipedia). Since "Kazipur" is a village, it makes it harder to filter out spurious hits. I found a few references, but none that could be viewed as reliable, e.g.:

(1) ~~a flickr reference [10], which mentions the Kazipur River. Also a similar reference in Facebook [11].~~ I should have caught this sooner -- appears to be copied from Wikipedia.

(2) a picture in a blog [12], but based on other reading, I think this may actually be a picture of erosion of some river or other (maybe the Jamuna) in the area around the village of Kazipur.

I also searched for কাজীপুর নদী in Bengali. Not knowing Bengali, I used Google translate to try and make sense of the refernces, but couldn't find any reference to the Kazipur River. The article claims the Kazipur is an offshoot of the Jamuna River, so I checked that article for references to the Kazipur, but didn't find any. It's certainly possible references exist, but there's insufficient evidence at this point.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update to my searches: By reading other Wikipedia articles on the rivers in Bangladesh, I'm beginning to think that banglapedia [13] might have something - I feel like I just keep missing it. So far, I've found [14], which talks about the village of Kazipur, and has a map showing that the Jamuna river passes by, with many branches. If anyone is more familiar with this, it would be a big help! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Jakob and Sminthopsis84, I think there's enough to say the river probably exists. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a source is available here, though it did take some digging. I'm working on fixing copyvio problems with the article. --Jakob (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thank you folks for looking at this! Armed with the possibility that this was a real river, I tried again and got a little further, figuring out that Royganj and Raiganj are alternative spellings. Looking at the map in Banglapedia of Sirajganj Sadar Upazila, which is immediately south of Kazipur Upazila (an Upazila being a sub-district), there are some suggestive blue squiggles showing a river that comes from Kazipur and joins the Ichamati, so perhaps if the river has been chopped in a confusing way outside the subdistrict boundary on the map of Kazipur Upazila, then the existence of the river could be plausible. The earlier material "The combined waters of the Kazipur and the Ichamati flow south by a winding course through Serajganj thana until they enter the Karatoya River" may also be plausible if one looks at the map of Kamarkhanda Upazila, which is south of Sirajganj Sadar Upazila. That reasoning means that what is probably referred to as the Ichamati would join the Karatoya in Raiganj, and it actually does in the bottom right of Banglapedia's map of Raiganj. By jimminy, there's actually a place called Nalka at that spot, which bears some resemblance to the Nalkaseganj name in the original text! So the original "flow south by a winding course through Serajganj thana until they enter the Karatoya River at Nalkaseganj, an important commercial centre at the junction of the two main inland waterways of the subdivision." could read "flow south by a winding course through Sirajganj Sadar Upazila until they enter the Karatoya River at Nalka, an important commercial centre at the junction of the two main inland waterways of Raiganj Upazila. I had thought the page was a hoax to promote some particular commercial venture, with someone's imaginings about a river, but it is clearly based on something on the ground. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Holy crap, you guys are awesome. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering the above sources and maps. --Jakob (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree that with citations added for that material it could be okay. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm okay with keeping this article because it has significant citations. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nice digging for sources! - Takeaway (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: While I technically started this discussion, it was only a technicality, so I'm not the person who can withdraw this. The real nominator is @Sminthopsis84:, and since their concern that this is a hoax is satisfied, I encourage them to withdraw this nomination. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage United Methodist Church[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Prod removed with some sources added, but nothing that indicates why this church would meet our guidelines. No evidence of notability (i.e. significant non-routine coverage) could be found by me online, but perhaps others have more luck. Fram (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The content is totally NN. If this is singificantly expanded, let me know. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched Newspapers.com for a possible historical source, but only came up with a couple of obituaries that mentioned the church. I am One of Many (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Oborotov[edit]

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

Fails WP:KICK and WP:GNG. It looks like there's a lot of sources, but they all turn out to be either fight results or announcements--nothing that shows significant independent coverage. There's also nothing that shows he meets the notability standards for kickboxers.Mdtemp (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~As per nomination.~~Peter Rehse (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Damm I missed that - WKN fights clearly meet WP:KICK Bows to the Master.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with the Table. Not sure the weights are right and also not sure about the first Wins International Heavyweight Tournament +96 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, could be just --K1 Events 6 Heavyweight Tournament +96 kg--. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Passes WP:KICK, Fought two times for WKN World Title.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because article meats WP:KICK - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 09:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nithor Mahbub[edit]

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

No notability. The subject's facebook pages do not establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 (unremarkable person). Jinkinson talk to me 17:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 (unremarkable person).– nafSadh did say 22:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy or otherwise. Non notable person at this point in time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks to qualify as a speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. I am One of Many (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Storry[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Article is only 2 sentences. His "best known role" was a minor one. JDDJS (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very well-known face on British TV. Not a starring actor, indeed, but a solid string of supporting roles over many years, some of them quite substantial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Article only mentions two roles. If he really is a very well-known British TV actor, you should be able to find sources and expand the article. If you expand the article so that it actually has content, I'll withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do know that stubs are acceptable, right? Being a stub is most certainly not a reason for deletion. And there is a source at the bottom. A quick look will confirm his roles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a difference between a stub and a two sentence article. WP:One sentence does not an article make. (Not a policy but an appropriate essay for this discussion). JDDJS (talk)
      - No, there isn't. From WP:STUB: "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text"! That's pretty unequivocal. The essay you've just cited is not accepted in any way and would be opposed by many editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Former RSC actor. Vashti (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Asian Sports Karate Games[edit]

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

Non-notable karate competition. Single occurance, only primary sources. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have been a one time event. There is no significant independent coverage and my google search only found WP (and its mirrors) references.Mdtemp (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the previous comments. I found no significant independent coverage of this event. Papaursa (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. The raw numbers certainly favor deletion here, and I don't see that the advocates of keeping have adequately addressed the inherent problems with the topics that have been noted in the "delete" opinions. Deor (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chionophobia[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this is a notable phobia

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

NikosGouliaros (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To All- Phobia’s are a medical term that is well established. In fact we has a List of phobias here on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs) 13:29, 16 October 2014‎
Comment You probably mean Melophobia (fear), not the album. Sjö (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I mean melophobia (fear), and I apologize. NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. You can add almost any word to -phobia and come up with a new phobia and odds are that there is someone in the world that has it. Quote from List of phobias: "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. ... Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines." The sources in most of the articles appear to be that kind of web sites. For the phobias to be notable they should be mentioned in WP:MEDRS for the parts about symptoms and treatment and they should be mentioned in "regular" WP:RS for other facts such as suffers or mentions in popular culture. As far as I can see all the articles fail to do that. Sjö (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: God-awful sourcing that falls far, far short of our regular RS guidelines, never mind MEDRS. No evidence that any of these "phobias" have ever been mentioned in serious sources. Most seem to have been made up for Scrabble, Trivial Pursuit or for advertising purposes. Delete the lot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The sources are terrible, e.g.: FearofStuff (a blog); Phobia Fear Release ("How To Stop Phobia In Only 10 Minutes A Day! Guaranteed!"); Phobia Source (their stated aim is to list every phobia and fear, including any that people mail in). These articles don't even begin to demonstrate notability. I found no indication that any of these are notable. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed the article samhainophobia by replacing two refs and changing contents to reflect it. I think that the article and sources (more surely from Forbes) are good enough, so the proposed deletion of samhainophobia shall be cancelled from the bundle. If not, I can keep working on it. To make matters better, I see there is a book titled "Samhainophobia: Fear of Halloween", but there is no content in the page. Planet Star 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PlanetStar, thank you for your input. Unfortunately, I do not think that the new citations meet the criteria of reliable sources; the Forbes citation only cites the other blog source the WP article cites. It also mentions possible treatment, which is merely the standard treatment of phobias. Moreover, the problem in the above articles is not the lack of citations; is the lack of sources that prove the notability of the above conditions. All the above phobias are mere neologisms; making a new article for every one of them would turn Wikipedia into a dictionary. NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I added citations using about.com, which I thought they're reliable source. Planet Star 22:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow wikipedian, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). An example of a phobia that can be supported by reliable references - and therefore could be added to a legitimate list of phobias, as it has been proposed in the relative discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine - is severe-weather phobia, described here. Though ironically I think there is no article for the specific phobia - not that there should be. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The sourcing is entirely unacceptable, and the 'phobias' appear to be neologisms invented either as word-games, or as click-bait for websites promoting supposed 'cures'. Unless and until it can be demonstrated that a supposed 'phobia' is discussed in sources complying with WP:MEDRS, we have no business implying that such specific phobias have any recognition at all. Clinical psychology isn't an exercise in labelling, and cobbled-together pseudoscientific terminology is neither necessary nor appropriate in treatment of anxiety disorders. The terms are non-notable by Wikipedia standards, being found nowhere but in sources which exist solely to promote them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well-said.--Srleffler (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any that lack reliable sources.--Srleffler (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in this discussion may also be interested in:

Srleffler (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to all Yes they could use citations, but putting [citation need's] on there would probably help solve that problem. They include useful information - they're actual medical conditions. Is there a project devoted to phobias to take these under their wing? Ballplayer62 (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If these are actual medical conditions, it should be possible to find a medical source that discusses them. The issue is not just that the articles lack reliable sources, but that it is not clear that any such sources exist. It's also not clear that any of the information in these articles is useful or accurate, and not better covered at specific phobia.--Srleffler (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that it's not clear that any sources backing these conditions exist; it's clear that such sources do not exist... Only vestiphobia has one case report in a medical journal, which is not sourced in PubMed, and is just not enough to prove notability. NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These are non-topics. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 01:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Romeocarvalo) in violation of ban or block Jac16888 ^Talk 18:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Walter[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker. Walter's film school thesis was submitted to Indie Fest, where it was given an "Award of Merit", along with over 80 other films that won the same "Award of Merit." (See http://www.theindiefest.com). Apparently not a very discriminating award. None of his other films rise above the typical film school output. Coverage of Walter himself is local only (UCLA school newspaper and his hometown paper in Versailles ). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we seem to have a case of sockuppetry here. The pair of articles, Benjamin Walter and Pink Zone have been repeatedly recreated by User:Theonewhoknocksproductions, User:BrianLoewe, then by User:75.82.25.125 who left a nasty threat and admission and now by User:Romeocarvalo. Also see User:Theonewhoknocksproductions/sandbox. This article has been deleted a couple of times before, last one by @Jimfbleak:. Accounts have been tagged as socks. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, it qualifies for speedy deletion. I'll tag as such. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable ? Do you know Dances With Films, Fantasporto ? These are the biggest festivals in L.A. and Europe sso why on earth are you deleting this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeocarvalo (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Slade[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references are generally about the band, not the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Soloist in We Are the World 25 for Haiti demonstrates notability outside of the band. Teemu08 (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in the process of looking for proof of notability. However, I'm not clear on your statement. Which of the 12 WP:MUSICBIO criteria do you think Slade meets? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a notable early 21st-century recording artist. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm in the process of looking for proof of notability. Slade may very well be notable, but your statement doesn't cite any Wikipedia-based reason; it pretty much comes across as saying "he's notable because he's notable". Could you describe what Wikipedia criteria he meets? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Me too. I don't see proof that he's "a notable early 21st-century recording artist". You need to select an item in WP:MUSICBIO to confirm his notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Comment~~. The article doesn't help its own cause very much, but an article like this [15] makes me think he may meet general notability guidelines. It will take more time to check things out. In the meantime, I've placed questions under the above two keeps. It will help point me in the right direction. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't yet seen any reason why Isaac Slade meets WP:MUSICBIO. However, general notability is another question. The Denver Post article I referenced above [16] is a major article about Slade as an individual. Already cited in the Wikipedia article, this British news article [17] talks about Slade's personal life. Plus, there's this rather odd piece [18] from 2007 about potentially inheriting a $15 million mansion. There are also a bunch of interview-the-band-member articles, which by themselves aren't that big a deal, but contribute a little. Although it's a strange mix of unrelated stuff, I think that adds up to significant coverage of multiple events by non-local sources. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (This article was also eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G5.) MER-C 02:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of firsts in Arunachal Pradesh[edit]

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

It has no notability on wikipedia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk • contribs) 14:05, 16 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No value for navigational purposes, or for any other purpose that I can envision. Has no counterpart in reliable independent secondary sources, hence OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'- appears to be a vanity article of a nationalistic flavour. Reyk _YO! 02:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted This article doesn't meet with the deletion policy, it is the most important topic in Arunachal Pradesh, it would also became the treasure of knowledge for the next generation. Donyi Taga (Arunachal Pradesh) (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet. MER-C 01:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G4. Giant Snowman 17:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Irawan (footballer)[edit]

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

Havent played any match in a fully professional league. MbahGondrong (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:G4. This article is not significantly different than the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Irawan. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Ballini[edit]

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

breaching Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons: relatively unknown, possible self-promotion Lapislazzuli196 (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quick check of Italian news doesn't yield much, search of international news not much either, ditto US news, not much in entertainment-related news, zilch in fashion publications, there are plenty of images (if one clicks "images") suggesting she's a beautiful woman (consistent with model hypothesis), not much in Spanish news; looks like she wrote a book of poems, not much indication that her book was reviewed critically in media, although she's probably an interesting human. Overall lack of sourcing suggests she doesn't meet the WP:GNG, unfortunately, would like to keep her in Wikipedia but lacking sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews Hi. I found several reviews of her books but in Spanish; specially for "El Pais de las Sombras", and a Full Italian Interview for libereva.com, is that valid? thanks in advance Bnotepr (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:RS. this one and this one don't seem to meet the WP:SECONDARY requirement, don't seem neutral to me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Also, while the requirements for articles in Wikipedia are generally clear-cut, possibly consider adding photos to Wikimedia Commons; that way, the photos can be used in articles in Wikipedia, as well as being shared around the web. If interested, here is the link to upload photos, with the general idea that the photographer of the photos is the person presumed to be the copyright owner, and with verbal consent from the person shown in the photos (add a "consent" tag to each uploaded file); permission can be verified via email, if need further information write on my talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo: I can remove the photo if is necesary Bnotepr (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case it got deleted, how long does it take?Bnotepr (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

???--Tomwsulcer (talk)

I mean, I found sources, but are too promotional, so I guess its gonna be deleted.. so when is that gonna happen? Bnotepr (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bnotpr, the decision to keep or delete the article has not happened yet, but usually takes a week or so, depending on how many people vote and what they say. What I am trying to say is that if you know this person, and would like her to have exposure in Wikipedia in photos, write something on my talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am her webmaster at saraballini.com, and work designs for her as well... I am not to much into wikipedia.. I just go there an open a subject 'Sara Ballini'? Bnotepr (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to Tom's work above, no hits in PQ/LN database searches. No plausible redirect targets. Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar ♔ 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources just don't support passing our criteria for notability at this time. The sources that do exist might prove she exists, but they aren't reliable enough to show she is notable. Dennis - 2¢ 20:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monique van Heist[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 12:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~delete~~ keep - tough one. It's definitely written like an advertisement and most of the references are self-published. That said, there's at least one independent magazine article there and a couple of awards. I'm swayed by the fact that most of her exhibitions have been in the Netherlands suggesting little impact or notability outside her own country. That's not a deal-killer but combined with the seeming lack of significant coverage, I'm leaning delete at this stage. But a good reference or two would get this over the line (provided it is re-written). St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still not entirely convinced but the sources added by Trackinfo are enough to convince me this probably shouldn't be deleted. Still needs major work, though. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Agree that the article is extremely promotional. However, there does seem to be enough coverage in Europe to warrant inclusion. If consensus is Keep, I’ll prune the piece back. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shoessss, I'm genuinely open to being convinced here. Can you give me an indication of which coverage you considered in drawing your conclusion? St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, but there's enough good material there to make it worth keeping and improving. The number of awards received is worth noting.Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of awards won is irrelevant (4); what we need to consider is the significance of the awards. In this case they are almost entirely local and 3 of them were awarded at the same event. That doesn't seem like a demonstration of significance or notability. St★lwart¹¹¹ 20:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What we argue first here is notability. I have added a few sources from fashion press "Independent Fashion Daily," "World Fashion Hub," and her resume posted on "Modern On Line." It looks like she is getting legitimate coverage within her niche. That established we have no business deleting the article. As for the self-promotional and self-sourced aspects of the content, that needs to be edited carefully, first checking to see what facts verify from more legitimate sources. So far from my search (no I have not gone point by point), everything included in the article is backed up. Trackinfo (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination reason is advertising, mr. Trackinfo. The Banner talk 08:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The mention of virtually any entity on wikipedia is a form of advertising--unpaid promotion. Our job as a reference source is to select from entities that are doing something of significance, or merely ones that wish to use our service to try to promote their way into becoming such. We judge that by notability, by the coverage they get in media independent of the subject. If we were to eliminate anybody trying to sell a product, we may as well delete the articles for Microsoft, Apple, Exxon . . . which would be doing our readers an injustice because we are not telling them about things that affect their world. And most importantly, we do not delete the entire subject, when the solution to a problem might be trimming some content. That is a process called editing. Trackinfo (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know, and I am waiting till you start doing that. I know that you hate AfD's (otherwise you would not follow me around to every AfD and CSD I start) but instead of criticizing my work, you can start to improve the article be rewriting it in a non-promotional tone. And otherwise you can back up my proposal to repeal WP:SPAM, because too many people ignore that policy. The Banner talk 15:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC):[reply]
      - Hi Banner, the article has been NPOVd. Please withdraw the AfD! gidonb (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I checked Lexis Nexis and Google Books. Given the abundance of newspaper sources, especially in the largest circulation paper of the Netherlands, as well as magazine sources, there is clearly no case for deletion. There is also some TV coverage and inclusion in books. I suggest withdrawing this nomination as baseless and waste of time or closing the discussion ASAP. gidonb (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. irretrievably contaminated by the advertising and the PR referencing. I rather sympathize with TheBanner's view that anyone claiming it possible to retrieve an article like this should do so during the AfD, rather than let us hope it will be done afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, the article has been NPOVd. Please review your position accordingly! gidonb (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject, bad article, problems fixed as per WP:HEYMANN, meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there have been some improvements. Bearian (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as keep, as nominator. Issues solved by radically slashing the article. Hope that it stay neutral now. The Banner talk 14:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! gidonb (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources establish notability and the article has been trimmed down sufficiently so that the PR issues are eliminated and it can be built back up to an article. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Master of Puppets. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Home (Sanitarium)[edit]

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

Does not claim to be a notable song (see WP:NSONG) and I cannot find any proof that it has charted. When searching billboard.com it is mentioned in passing quite frequently though and has been covered at least once, but the covers are not notable either, but does being covered imply notability? Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect – To Master of Puppets. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well-known, lots of in fo on page, annd on 15 other wikipedias, while some songs hat stay are on ZERO.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-known isn't a criteria for inclusion, WP:GNG would be the base criteria. It reads that the topic has "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Simply being well-known isn't there, but if you find people writing articles and essays about the song, it would qualify. I couldn't find that. I could only find mentions of it. Other wikipedia projects have different criteria for inclusion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have seen songs that are totally unknown and n only this wikipedia that dont get deleted and unknown people with the same things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Time Music Fan (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's an essay that discusses what you described and the general agreement is that your argument isn't a valid one in deletion discussions. In short, if there are other songs that need to go through this process, we can do so for each of them, but their existence is not a reason to keep this article on Wikipedia. Also, if there are albums, articles about musicians or bands that are not notable, we need to discuss them and evaluate their worth to this encyclopedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge & Redirect – Lacks references, and there isn't much encyclopedical material about this song on the internet. Labeling a song as "well-known" is personal opinion, because it varies from person to person. I suggest to stick to whether music writers had discussed the song or not.--Retrohead (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Master of Puppets, not enough secondary coverage outside of album reviews to warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does the number of notable bands that have covered the song and that it has been used in a movie count(?) I'm not sure if that warrants a page by itself but it would be good if the content could be kept as it's well written. For what it is worth - I don't believe there were any singles from the Master of Puppets album, but this song gas remained a regularly played live song up until today, and Metallica play to large audiences headlining stadiums and festivals. In the early nineties I remember learning the riff on the guitar so I found this page interesting reading. Willzuk (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title track was released as a single, but this track was not. I think Anthrax is the most notable band to cover the song, but other covers are mainly by metal bands that aren't known worldwide.--Retrohead (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how it was used it the filme and what kind of film. If it was simply background music in the film, and receives a credit, then no. If it's a plot-point in the film, in other words, if the characters take note of the music or the song repeats to help progress the plot, and the film itself is notable (i.e. not a student piece or something that was direct to video and doesn't have an IMDB, Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes review) then, yes, that would make the song notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The movie was Paradise Lost - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117293/?ref_=nv_sr_1 you'll see that under soundtrack it is the first song listed. There are three films and the wikipedia page says the song featured in the intro for all of them - I would say the film is notable ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost:_The_Child_Murders_at_Robin_Hood_Hills ) and it has received much attention. This page says it was the first song Metallica allowed to be used in a movie - http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=2692 . I would say that some of the other bands who are listed as covering it are well known worldwide, i.e. Machine Head, Limp Bizkit, Bullet for my valentine. The song also features in the computer game "Guitar Hero" Metallica edition. (I'm not knowledgable enough on wiki notability to say if that makes the song notable but I hope it helps!) Willzuk (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per soundtrack inclusion and some mediocre refs: blabbermouth.net, readers-poll-the-10-best-metallica-songs, The Top 10 Greatest Chorus Effect Recordings of All Time. Obviously not their most famous song, but with The Metallica topics already so bloated, squeezing it back into the album page doesn't seem like the best option. If the content can't be improved beyond this after efforts are made, then I'd say consider deleting and merging, at least the soundtrack info. Earflaps (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how can you prove the song's importance by citing a readers poll and a blog of "greatest choruses"? Are there any encyclopedias, books, or music writers analyzing the song?--Retrohead (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very well-known. He just stated his reasons. There are only like 2 other useful encyclopedias on the internet, but its on many other language wikipedias.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well-known according to who? Personal opinion on song importance has zero value on Wiki. His links are two unreliable sources and a readers pool by Rolling Stone, which can not be used as a reference in any article. Furthermore, bold "keeps" without explanation or arguments such as the one below doesn't count either.--Retrohead (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm a she. Earflaps (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 06:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Hospital Research[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Vanjagenije (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks Vanjagenije, I PRODded this and when it was de-PRODded, forgot to take it to AfD... No sources, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:Too soon. Insufficient substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources to meet the requirements of any of our notability guidelines. Maybe in a few years, after the journal establishes a reputation, but not at this time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NJOURNALS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally aggree with Dominus Vobisdu. If the journals earns scientific reputation it could be included but not today. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 06:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Whately[edit]

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

Yet another unelected Prospective Parliamentary Candidate in a British election, with no sourced or substantiated notability that would get her past either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. As always, a candidate in an election is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate, but must either win the election or already have enough properly sourced notability to get over a different inclusion rule independently of the candidacy to qualify. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN criteria and nothing indicates any wider biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates are rarely notable per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an unsuccessful political candidate is not notable just for running a losing campaign. Quis separabit? 19:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rocha[edit]

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

Politician who fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Mayor of a smallish city (not even one of the 20 largest cities in its county). No independent sources are provided in the article; in a search I found only a few passing mentions of him. MelanieN (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a city with a population of 44K is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL. It's large enough that a genuinely substantive and properly sourced article about the mayor could potentially be kept, but it doesn't give the mayor an automatic entitlement to keep an article that's effectively just a thinly veiled rewrite of his own campaign bio, or that's sourced only to his own campaign bio on his own campaign website (which would have been an invalid primary source that could not confer notability even if it weren't now a dead link.) So it's possible that he might qualify for a good article, if somebody can write and source one, but he's in no way entitled to keep this. delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a politician and lacks the significant independent coverage required by the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 06:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie Raia[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Line Magazine is her talking abbout herself. The Hype Magazine and Examiner are not reliable sources. The Brain Music is not independent. The others are just postings of her video or remixes. Nothing significant. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 06:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Lee[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Did appear on one soundtrack but that's not enough for a stand alone article. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 06:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Perry (singer)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is one source that may be good, SoulTrain.com, but the rest are not. Minor mentions, a photo, primary, blogs, twitter. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BET and Billboard are not acceptable sources? The BET articles/video are not minor mentions. The BET Awards is a major award show. HollyQ (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first BET source, repeated, is part of their promotional material for their awards, not independent. The second is him talking about himself, not independent. The Billboard source is a trivial mention and in inclusion in a photo. No depth of coverage. This article and the "coverage" out there appears to be someone trying to promote him as the next big thing. But in the years since he has not become what they hoped. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 05:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Chacón Perez[edit]

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

Not notable. Looks like a well referenced article but that is just smoke and mirrors (much like other deceptive articles created by the same editor). A look at the current sourcing:

1 "Grachi conquista los Kids' Choice Awards de Nickelodeon" - No mention of Perez

2 "TV Production. Producing tween telenovelas finds a home in Miami" - dead link

3 "Theatre in Venezuela: Avant Première" - actual title "Sindy Lazo, Marcos Moreno y Adolfo Cubas le meten a la pornografía". listing with minor mention as director, does not support claim

4 "Bambalinas. Espectáculos en Miami" - trivial mention, does not support claim.

5 "Broadway en Nuestra Belleza Latina" - by his employer, not independent

6 "Con pasos de reina. La actitud es la clave del éxito" - by his employer, not independent

7 "David Chacón es parte de Nuestra Belleza Latina 2010" - by his employer, not independent

8 David Chacón Perez Bio at IMDb. - not a reliable source

9 "David Chacón en Nuestra Belleza Latina. Conoce a las 12 finalistas. Los jueces hicieron su selección" - by his employer, not independent

10 "La Máxima Felicidad" llega a Miami" - dead link

11 "Comedia del peruano Jaime Nieto en el Miami Globo Theater dirigida por David Chacón Perez" - actual title is "Dick y Pusi, dos estrellas del porno, se aman locamente de Jaime Nieto". Short mention of Perez as the director of this play.

12 "Hermana Act directed by David Chacón Perez" - actual title is "Hermana Act". Event listing that mentions him as director.

13 "Director Venezolano David Chacón Estrena reality Show en Miami" - dead link

None provide any depth of coverage about Perez. A search found nothing better.
Perez was one of many producers of "¡Viva el Sueño!" and directsl local plays in Miami. Not seeing any notability. Even if he is, the promo piece is not the appropriate article and should be blown away. Deceptively sourced promotional BLPs do not belong on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arco Iris. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julio "Jimmy" Ledezma[edit]

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

Not notable. Prime claim to notability seems to be as a member of Arco Iris. He was a member later in their career, after they had left their home country and changed from rock to jazz, well after the height of their fame. He lacks any notability outside that band. Ledezma lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. There is one minor local interest piece (look what this guy from our area is doing) but that is all. Others are about a band he is in, not about him. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect – To Arco Iris. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirectto Arco Iris, which is pretty much standard for these types of articles. Dennis - 2¢ 21:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:G12 -- style and format of the article indicates the text was copy-pasted from outside promotional sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nileshneel[edit]

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

I can't tell what this article is supposed to be. I can't tell how much of it is a copyright violation and how much of it has already been mirrored. The most recent author appears to have a conflict of interest. The most recent author keeps removing warning tags. The material I can find about this person on line all appears to be self published. SchreiberBike talk 06:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – For copyright violations. Article is a complete cut and paste from several articles. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as press-releases masquerading as a wikipedia article, and failing WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR. While the subject has a substantial web-presence due to dozens of cross-linked websites run by him, I didn't find any substantial (or, even trivial) coverage in reliable independent sources. The "National Glory" award from the "Kremlin Foundation" appears to be non-noteworthy; the book, self-published and not reviewed anywhere; and the business association with Viktor Petrik means that we should be doubly careful in evaluating sources, awards etc. Also note that the article creator O21cd (talk · contribs) (now blocked) and Nileshneel (talk · contribs) are likely sock/meat-puppets given that o21cd is the name of one of Neel's enterprises. I am not raising the copyvio issue only because I suspect the article creators may well own the copyright to the promotional text. Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as there are no relevant information available about the award or the foundation which gave the award. This is a self written article just to boost the publicity. I propose a speedy delete. Athachil (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 05:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Hepworth[edit]

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

Sources provided are brief mentions, authored by the article-subject or otherwise weak sources. No indication of notability, as with the other similar article regarding co-founders of the same company. CorporateM (Talk) 05:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a clear decision for as influential a journalist as Hepworth. His impact on the music industry of the 1980s was sizeable, and his Wikipedia page has nearly 100 links to it. A lack of sources is primarily due to his peak period being at a time prior to the internet. Smb1001 (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most influential music journalist and media analyists of the last 40 years. Hepworth is a heavyweight and has a commendable and still relevant career. He was instrumental in the foundation of a number of highly popular magazines in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, and a driving force behind "Smash Hits" in it's heyday. He presented the BBC broadcast of Live Aid on 13 July 1985, goading Geldof into asking viewers to send them their *fucking money*. That alone. Give the man his respect. Ceoil (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn and no other "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ellen[edit]

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

Sources are brief mentions, broken links, and other weak sources. I am not that familiar with our notability requirements for journalists, so hopefully someone else in the AfD discussion is. CorporateM (Talk) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject has been described in the Irish Times as "one of the most important figures in modern British music journalism" ([19], via Highbeam, subscription reqd.). AllyD (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Seems I was working a little too fast. user:AllyD's source certainly establishes notability. CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 05:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virginitiphobia[edit]

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

The topic of the article is a neologism, based solely on a non-reliable website. As noted at List of phobias, there are many unreliable lists of phobias that can be found online. Wikipedia's policies require that there be reliable sources that discuss a named phobia, before we create an article on it. Srleffler (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one just other mention in reasonable sources, at Kluger, J., Cray, D., Liston, B., & Plon, U. (2001). FEAR NOT! (cover story). Time, 157(13), 52. But that's sourced to the same dubious source as our article - so yes, this looks bogus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The sole source citet is entirely non-compliant with WP:MEDRS, and indeed with WP:RS in general: "If you happen to come across a phobia that we have not listed please contact us and we will be sure to include it." [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like I stated at WP:Med, the Virginitiphobia article is not Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant, and the term virginitiphobia is a non-WP:Notable neologism; WP:Neologism is clear on matters such as these. Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already noted, the sources found are not reliable and seems dubious. Non notable WP:Neologism. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 08:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no paper in Pubmed that mentions this. It appears to be a neologism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per the same arguments I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chionophobia.Sjö (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Random -phobia neologism. Seems to have some traction in non-reliable sources (such as Urban Dictionary), but that's hardly applicable to a medical topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Euryalus (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrius Tillman Nelson[edit]

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

Insignificant coverage, per WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM. Article should be merged into taser safety issues. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete There are a couple of short AP articles on his death, but no analysis and no indication lasting effects. No doubt a sad case, but no indication of notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there simply isn't enough meat on this bone, not enough coverage, and the content as it sits is under-sourced and contentious. Dennis - 2¢ 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Oxenbould[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Previous AFD resulted in deletion JDDJS (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous article was deleted last February for WP:TOO SOON, with several saying he will probably be notable when the Alexander film is released. Film has been released. Stories on him by the 'LA Times', 'USA Today', Salt Lake Tribune', 'Toronto Sun', and many others. Oxenbould clear passes GNG now. Bgwhite (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bgwhite. Actor is notable enough now, has a great coverage. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yeah, the result there was the right one but the situation has changed since, allowing the subject to now pass WP:GNG and probably WP:NACTOR. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn No point in dragging this out. It's clear that the consensus is that he's notable now. JDDJS (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Kimpton[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG as well as music notability guidelines. All references are completely unreliable, one being to Amazon, two being to his own website and one being imdb. No indication of notability whatsoever. Also, some of the material comes very close to being a negative blp violation. Article was previously deleted at AfD, but I am not certain CSD G4 would apply, so taking back to AfD instead. Safiel (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per the nominator. I haven't seen the original article, but judging on the first AfD it appears that both iterations have similar issues. Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Possible issues have been raised about the article, but there is no consensus for either a keep or delete in this AfD. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dean[edit]

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

Article has not been properly referenced since at least 2011, and the only big-name source I can find (BBC) turns out to be linked directly from Wiki itself. All other sources are a one-paragraph bio that looks copy-pasted between sites. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 2 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:16, 9 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if it can be verified that he is in fact signed to Sony Music Entertainment then he easily passes WP:MUSIC, although I wasn't able to locate a reference for this. The fact that he's discussed by the BBC may also be an indicator of notability. Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether or not it becomes a redirect or not is another matter, but as it sits, the overall consensus is that it is closer to WP:NEO than genre. Dennis - 2¢ 21:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier (subgenre)[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP: this is a neologism supported by an old page on an obscure website and a link to a syllabus for a high-school class on "The Frontier as a Theme in Science Fiction". The other "sources" are just links to Google Books searches that find the word "frontier" in books about SF. Orange Mike | Talk 03:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, they do indeed mention the frontier theme in sci-fi and sci-fi factor explains it's a theme that discusses space exploration and in case anybody hasn't noticed, we have no subgenre that covers that. People falsely claim space opera covers that, but it doesn't. Space opera is about battles and conflicts set in space and other planets. Oppose delete.--Taeyebaar (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - neither themes, motifs nor memes constitute subgenres. There are no SF conventions dedicated to "Frontier SF", no publishers publishing "frontier SF", no critics doing "A Survey of Frontier SF after World War II". You've got a terminological misunderstanding going on here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's true that some people have discussed frontier-related concepts in the context of science fiction but these sources aren't strong enough (in my view) to substantiate the claim that "Frontier" exists as a defined and notable sub-genre of science fiction generally. That doesn't mean that some games, films and books haven't touched on such concepts as other games, films and books have done in other genres. There is, for example, a strong "frontier" theme to many post-apocalyptic works in a "re-exploration" context. But drawing these disparate parts and examples together under an otherwise unrecognised umbrella term is synthesis. That we can conduct our own original research and find "examples" is not a sufficiently strong case for keeping this. The fact that experts haven't yet identified a term to "fill the gap" doesn't mean we should. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem here is that while I can find things that focus on the theme of the frontier in science-fiction, I don't see where it's really turned into a fully developed subgenre per se. In other words, it's used as a descriptive term but isn't really used to refer to a subgenre specifically and at most, this is a neologism. A theme is not necessarily a subgenre. The two terms can be very, very close in how they're used but strictly speaking a theme is more of a general concept whereas a subgenre would be a set concept that something would have (ie, "coming of age", "slice of life"). Basically, the difficulty here lies in showing that this is clearly defined enough to be easily labeled a subgenre. It's an insanely hard thing to do, especially with very broad concepts that someone could argue is a mainstay of the basic science fiction genre as a whole. What we're dealing with here is that we have to not only show that "frontier" is a legitimate subgenre of science-fiction but to also show that the term is frequently used enough to where it'd merit an article separate from the main science fiction pages. I'd like to hold up new-adult fiction as an example of how insanely hard it is to get a term popularized enough to where it'd gain notice enough to warrant its own entry. This genre of fiction has been around for years, yet only recently has it gained enough coverage to merit an article... and even then that article's notability was challenged. I'm looking for sources on this, but I'm not coming up with all that much as far as coverage goes. What we need here is a lot of coverage that specifically refers to frontier as a subgenre. The problem here is that a lot of this could be considered original research since Science Fiction: A Very Short Introduction does not actually mention frontier as a subgenre- meaning that this is a connection that User:Taeyebaar came up with on his own. Now don't get me wrong- I think that as a subgenre this makes sense and I can see where you're coming from with this. It's just that right now all we have are ultimately a few texts that focus on "frontier as theme" and your personal attestation that it's a separate, recognized subgenre. That's pretty much the catch of all of this: I don't see where the term is frequently used enough to where it's a recognized subgenre of science fiction and per your own words, it seems like many consider it to be part of space opera. Wikipedia is not the place to popularize a term or to correct things that you personally feel are incorrectly categorized. Again, I do understand what you're trying to do here but this just isn't the right place for this, not when we can't find the research to back up your claims that this is an existing subgenre. I can't even see where publishers are using this term, and that's fairly telling because publishers love to subcategorize things because it means that they can advertise things in a new, more exciting way. (Publishers were the main driving force behind new adult fiction, which was part of the reason the article came up for scrutiny.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where it's slowly getting there, but it's just not there yet. At best this is just WP:TOOSOON and at worst this is something that will remain forever unverifiable because the subgenre could be considered far too wide of a concept to neatly fit into the idea of a subgenre. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As soon as I read this page I thought it read like a theme that fitted within the Space opera sub-genre of science fiction. A check of that page shows the Frontier page listed as a "See also" link. So rather than lose the work that has been done here (admittedly there's not a lot) I suggest it gets copied into the higher level Space opera page and edited appropriately there. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above - No it's not space opera. I already discussed it. Space opera is about conflict-type adventure totally different from Frontier. If it constitutes wp:toosoon, then I suggest we save it until future time when it is notable. Also Star Trek is NOT Space opera.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, nor is Stargate SG1 and its ilk. But you're missing the point. Things need to be notable (which means having received significant coverage in reliable sources) before we create articles. We don't keep/save things and hope they become notable because WP is not a publisher of original thought. You can't simply invent something because you see a gap and then synthesise and article based on passing mentions and personal interpretations. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the Frontiers page "Another common depiction in Frontier is contact between humans (or whichever species is shown traveling) and another species that live in the uncharted region of space. Mutual co-operation or conflict between the two civilizations is also a common occurrence." And the note from Taeyebaar says: "Space opera is about battles and conflicts set in space and other planets." I see some strong similarities between these two. If this page isn't merged with Space Opera I would expect it will be deleted as I don't see "Frontier" sf being a specific and distinct sub-genre. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict does occur, but not necessarily. Space opera is more about epic battles, whereas Frontier occasionally as it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging on the basis of personal interpretation isn't much better than creating an article on that basis in the first place. They are clearly distinct concepts, it's just that one is notable and the other isn't (yet). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This supposed sub-genre doesn't appear to be covered by reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page could use some improvement and expansion. What's more is I keep getting messages that it's been linked on many pages. Anyways i never came up with the name. It said on those websites. I was looking for the subgenre that describes space exploration and I found this to be the one. Otherwise we can also re-title it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Perry Middlemiss, whoever called stargate space opera ??? :-\ Taeyebaar (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Stargate suggestion was mine; I was suggesting that other media logically fits into the theme described. But that doesn't make that theme a notable sub-genre. I don't think there is an accurate sub-genre to describe what we're talking about. But that doesn't mean we should invent one or synthesise one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only put in the word as the sources described. That's it--Taeyebaar (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bulk of the arguments here would be nullified if you could include the sources you refer to in that statement, on the page as citations. I've just checked the online edition of "SF Encyclopedia" and while the term "frontier" does turn up a number of times, the search hits only lead to book titles, game titles and tv shows. The closest I could find was under the subject header "Scientific Romance" as follows: "Brian M Stableford later revived [Scientific Romance as a term] in order to facilitate the comparison and contrast of the distinct UK and US traditions of speculative fiction; his study of the UK genre's separate evolution before the triumph of genre sf is Scientific Romance in Britain 1890-1950 (1985). In that book, and in entries throughout this encyclopedia (see in particular Evolution, Religion), the term can be seen as tending to describe works characterized by long evolutionary perspectives; by a focus on long vistas brooded upon by meditative protagonists (> New Zealander; Ruins and Futurity); by an absence of much sense of the frontier and a scarcity of the kind of Pulp-magazine-derived Hero who is designed to penetrate any frontier available; and in general by a tone moderately less hopeful about the future than that typical of genre sf until recent decades (> Optimism and Pessimism). - See more at: http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/scientific_romance#sthash.sdChxy3H.dpuf". Maybe the information on the Frontier page better fits under Planetary romance.

I suspect the number of page links is due to the fact that the term "Frontier" as been added as a subgenre on the Science Fiction template. Every page that accesses that template will link back to the Frontiers page. So the page link number will be quite high. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Space Western, which is what I think the article is supposed to be about. I somewhat recently rewrote that page, and frontier settings do come up in the sources for that notable genre. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that so long as "Frontier" becomes a sub-heading on the "Space Western" page. If "Frontier SF" becomes a recognizable independent genre at any time in the future then the original page can be re-instated. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis - 2¢ 21:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Barnes (technology evangelist)[edit]

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

No apparent notability —Eustress 01:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Lots of passing mentions and quotes attributed to him, but I'm not finding any WP:RS about the subject. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete David is a real IBM worker, but having a few quotes and attending a conference is not enough to be notable. Frmorrison (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Not notable; as a result it is a stub entry at best--Lfrankblam 19:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was snow close. I don't necessarily think that this is a hoax per se, as this link shows that this is something that the person genuinely believes in. However I do think that at best this is something someone came up with WP:ONEDAY and constitutes original research to the point where there's no real chance that this would pass notability guidelines anytime soon. That two of the links appear to be ones created by the original editor gives me some concern over possible self promotion as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real zombie[edit]

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

Seems to be some kind of original research about creating actual zombies. The only reliable sources given do not talk about this possibility. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 00:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. This looks like nonsense. Cannolis (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree, "nonsense" is apt. Just someone's blog/essay. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Correct me if I'm wrong, but this nearly unintelligible article seems to be about using 3D printers to print off zombies. This is not actually possible, so I believe speedy deletion per G3 (blatant hoaxes) is a good outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close. At best this is original research, but at worst this is a WP:SOAPBOX for a person's viewpoints. Either way, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British conspiracy In Creation of Israel[edit]

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

Original research/non-notable-fringe-conspiracy-theory. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I stopped reading at 'My hypothesis'. No, that's not true; I also caught 'the satanic state of Israel' in there as well. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and non notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Could probably be done under CSD A11. Would also like to note that the creator's only other edits are to JDAP this thing which I have tagged for speedy deletion. Cannolis (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - completely unsupported original research. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above, could well have been tagged for speedy deletion. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 02:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It starts with "My hypothesis and a short glance". 'Nuff said. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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