Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 September	19 September >

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 redirect to Rowan of Rin (series). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan of the Bukshah (character)[edit]

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

Fictional character that has been tagged for over 6 years now. Not much info, I think it can be redirected to the novels. Wgolf (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rowan of Rin. Nothing to suggest he is notable enough for an independent article. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rediret to Rowan of Rin. Not notable enough for a standalone article. Wikicology (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not enough to say in a standalone article. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator and no other recommendations for deletion. ^{Non-admin closure.}

Choudhry Muhammad Yousaf[edit]

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

~~BLP that has been unsourced for nearly 3 years. Either a userfy or a delete IMO. Wgolf (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)~~Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Former minister in a territorial government. Easily enough for notability under WP:POLITICIAN #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a single source, so the article no longer qualifies for deletion through the WP:BLPPROD process. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is a stub, but as a former state minister he satisfies WP:POLITICIAN.-- danntm ^T _C 18:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a former minister of state, it clearly satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. I understand that its needs an expansion.Wikicology (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-I misread what this was I just thought it was saying he was just a educator and thats it. sorry. Wgolf (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ALR Piranha[edit]

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

Just a study, never realistic plans to build a plane. The Banner talk 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep it Yes it was "just aproject" and the aircraft was never built. But it was a real project. It was the last project of an swiss fighter aircraft after the FFA N-20 and FFA P-16. an important project for the swiss military and swiss aviatic industrie.Only because it was never build? this is no reason. we have other aircraft projects here on wikipedia here a few examples/It is a project like the ones: Bell X-16 Lockheed CL-1200 Rockwell X-30 North American XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, Antonov An-218. If the ALR Piranha has to be deletet all other aircraftprojects would have deletet too. It was a project yes, but the build a cockpit 1:1 layout, the mad differen tests on windtunnel modells, they thested flightcharacteristics on raido controled scale models, the had plans for special HAS shelters for it.. so its not just a few drawings.

andLiterature is also a Reference

Janes all the world's aircraft supplement (18), in Flugrevue, Juni 1980, S. 55 f.
Jane's all the world's aircraft, Verlag McGraw-Hill, 1985, S. 205
Leichtkampfflugzeug Piranha. In: Schweizerische Bauzeitung: Wochenschrift für Architektur, Ingenieurwesen, Maschinentechnik, Band 96, 1978, S. 636
P-16 et autres jets suisses. Le Temps, 1. Dezember 2011

FFA P-16 (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a serious project and was written about in more than one reliable source. Just because a project is not completed does not make the project itself unworthy of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The general standard used for not-built projects by WikiProject Aircraft is found here and says "Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball articles about aircraft that have not yet been built are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project is likely to come to fruition, or it is a project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft." This project doesn't make that criteria as neither organization involved is an established aircraft manufacturer. This might instead be redirected to, and mentioned in, Swiss Air Force instead. - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt. Yes it was a project but if you say this has to be deleted then whe have to put all this ones Bell X-16 Lockheed CL-1200 Rockwell X-30 North American XF-108 Rapier, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, Antonov An-218 and much more also in question. The ETH Zurich was working on this projet, the same ETH who also was working on the Pilatus SB-2 Pelican, on the F+W N-20, on Solarimpuls. Georges Bridel from the ALR had workd bfore also on the FFA P-16. The ALR is still activein the aviatic field with the solar impulse. Yes the TH and ALR from smale switzerland are not as well known in the world like a Lockheed or Boeing from the big USA. But thisis for me not a reason to delet this page, it was a interesting project and it was part of the swiss Aviatic history nd part of the swiss air force history (the swiss ir force didn't buy it but was involved in the project) BTW here ome informations about ALR [[1]] Please see that the are also work on the solar impuls and other aviatic topics [[2]] FFA P-16 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Not at all, because those proposed and not-built projects you listed were all done by established aircraft manufacturers, not by a university and non-notable company, neither of which had manufactured an aircraft before. - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt You have to see the relation you can't expect uch ig aircraft manufacturr like in the USA. The ETH is not an aircraft manufacturer (but also the ZAGI in Russia not but the ZAGI worked for MiG, Sukhoi Tuploev ,..) so i think a famous aircraft building company is not the only important point for the question if an aircraftproject should be here on wikipedia. The ETH was involved also in the construction of real AC like SB-2 & P-16FFA P-16 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: That exactly illustrates my point, it was just an aircraft design project proposal from a non-notable company that had never built aircraft like this and it never went past proposal stage. There was little risk it would ever be built. It is all non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt. But only keeping projects of big companys on wikipedia seems for me not a good point. We ave here not a big aircraft company but the ETH , the ALR company the Swiss air Force and such Persons like George Bridel al this partners worked together for this project and each of this partners had worked in one or an other way on projects before and on real Aircraft Sb-2, N-20 P-16. And each of them are still active in the aivatic industrie. the ETH and the ALR had been also working at the actual Solarimpulse2 HB-SIB. Why should a project of an big aircraftbuilder bee more important than of a group of smale partner who are not in general aircraftbuilder but share theyer work for such a project. Also it is said that SAAB had bought parts of the project for the later SAAB Gripen [3]. BTW not bad for such an "unimportant"project if you get it not only as hand made wooden modell but also as plastic kit [4] ;-) FFA P-16 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt this articels exist to on wikipedia and aren't from big wellknown aircraftcompanys,(in my eyes): no prof that this was realy builtAlekseyev I-212,was never finished Belyayev Babochka and Bartini A-57.

Keep: While the article is a bit of a mess at the moment, there does appear to be a fair amount of coverage in Reliable Sources. As well as the sources listed above (and there is substantial coverage (~3/4 page if I remember correctly) in at least one edition of Jane's All The World's Aircraft, I have also found two reasonably substantial articles in the magazine Air International:
- "The Light Fighter Market...and a European proposal". Air International. 18 (2): 77–81. February 1980.
- Walters, Brian (November 1992). "Jäger Light: A project a decade too early". Air International. 43 (5): 257–259.

Coverage of the project, which reached wind tunnel and free-flight scale model testing, and according to the 1992 article was almost selected for license production in an unstated Middle East country, does appear to meet WP:GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there certainly is work to be done, but several much worse articles are not questioned. There are sources and references, there is some imagery, what more could one want? Above all, I am concerned about the people that put a lot of effort into this article and now are threatened with all of that being thrown away. Their work deserves respect and appreciation. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a Crystal Ball doesn't apply as we are not talking about vague future plans, but an actual project that existed (and which saw significant work done). Just because it wasn't by an established company doesn't deny it notability.NiD.29 (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't dispute the fact that the article still needs much work but it does satisfy the notability criteria. Let's not forget the principle of WP:EVENTUALISM Wikicology (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you think that a project out of the 1970s, eventually will delivered a flying plane? The Banner talk 15:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not the point.NiD.29 (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Jackson (American football)[edit]

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

First, Jackson has not played in a regular season game in professional league and does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, he has not received national press coverage or won an award that would qualify under WP:NCOLLATH. Third, he has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources so as to pass WP:GNG. He was a mediocre college player who gained only 228 yards in his best season at Michigan. Cbl62 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH, no evidence of notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT talk less of close to WP:NGRIDIRON. Subject has not appeared in regular season or post season game in any professional leagues. Wikicology (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Yankees10 03:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer above and fails WP:NGRIDIRON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records), nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (no significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). There is coverage of the subject, however: it is a mix of recruiting coverage, WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage, trivial mentions, and mish-mash of coverage from non-independent sources like student newspapers, or non-reliable sources like blogs, fansites, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Mathews (American football)[edit]

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

First, Matthews has not played in a regular season game in professional league and does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, he has not received national press coverage or won an award that would qualify under WP:NCOLLATH. Third, he has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is an article that was created siin good faith about a college football who appeared to have great potential but simply never emerged as a truly notable player. Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the article creator. Ex-post, my time might have been better spent on other subjects, but I still think this passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Michigan football follower, I've nominated this with reluctance (as well as a couple others), but I'm just not seeing the coverage that would cause Matthews to pass GNG. Happy to reconsider if such coverage can be located. Cbl62 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Tony's comment, I checked the Michigan football statistics archive here to see if there was information that would cause me to reconsider. The data actually tends to confirm my original opinion on Mathews' lack of notability. He never had a 100-yard receiving or multiple touchdown game, had a grand total of six touchdowns over four seasons, never received any All-American, All-Big 10, or even team honors, and accumulated only 409 receiving yards in his best season at Michigan. Cbl62 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, Cbl: the subject was lining up at wide receiver, not tight end, for four years, right? Is this a WP:NHSPHSATH situation, where the subject got a lot of recruiting hype coverage pre-college and notability was based primarily on his high school career? If so, possible application of the general notability guidelines regarding his high school career is superseded by the tougher standards for high school athletes per WP:NHSPHSATH. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, confirmed by his Mgoblue bio, is that Mathews played principally at the wide receiver position, not at tight end. Don't know anything about his high school career, but I'm not finding sufficient coverage of any kind to satisfy GNG. Willing to reconsider if such coverage can be found. Cbl62 (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A web search didn't turn up anything that would make him notable per WP:GNG, although I may have missed something given how common the name Greg Mathews is and how much WP:ROUTINE coverage there is of his college games. I would reconsider if other sources turn up. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks in depth coverage necessary for WP:GNG and current does not satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON.-- danntm ^T _C 18:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with caveat. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records), so must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources for inclusion. I have tried three times to sort through Google keyword searches for "'Greg Mathews' 'Michigan football'" and the like. As a recruit and a former member of one of the most storied college football programs, subject did receive a large amount of trivial mentions and WP:ROUTINE coverage. There is also a fair amount of ROUTINE coverage of his high school career in Orlando area newspapers, but it does not rise to the standard of WP:NHSPHSATH. What I am not finding is significant coverage in mainstream sports and news publications, i.e. more than recruiting websites or two or three random sentences in post-game coverage, but there is a lot of clutter through which to sort. If someone can show me two or three feature articles about the subject from mainstream publications (i.e. not blogs, not recruiting services, not fansites, etc.), I would reconsider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at on-line sources before nominating and could not find much in the way of significant coverage. The best I found was a couple pieces, both local coverage, from The Ann Arbor News here and here. I also searched the archives of The Detroit News here and the Detroit Free Press here and found no feature stories on Mathews. If more and better coverage can be found, I'd reconsider as well. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reasons as others.--Yankees10 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Alex Obomese[edit]

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

First, Obomese has not played in a regular season game in professional league and does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, he has not received national press coverage or won an award that would qualify under WP:NCOLLATH. Third, he has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. He was drafted a couple times but never played. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college football player for mid-major program. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records), or football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played a game in NFL, etc.). Subject lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With Eastern Front (disambiguation) moved to Eastern Front after deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Front[edit]

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

Same reasons as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Front. "Eastern front" just describes a fronts relative geography. There have been many fronts called "eastern" in history. This article is about only two of them. It is completely unreferenced and just summarises two other articles on the World War fronts. Eastern Front (disambiguation) should be moved to this title. Srnec (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason I voted delete at Western Front. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator makes a valid argument that the term is too vague to be defined precisely. Sources like this one refer to WW2 but sources like this one refer to the Eastern front in Ukraine. Further, Wikipedia already has a disambiguation page here at Eastern Front (disambiguation). So the current article, treating the Eastern front from both WW1 and WW2 as the same, and not covering other Eastern fronts, is a bit of original research. If there is new material in the current article that is not included in other Wikipedia articles, perhaps it could be added to the other articles?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Tunney[edit]

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

The subject appears to me to be notable for only one event, creating the occupywallst.org website (although since my CSD request was denied, that may be arguable). At any rate, even if Tunney is notable, there's not much to salvage from the article as it stands. If Tunney is notable for anything other than creating the Occupy Wall Street website, the article doesn't mention it; the bulk of the article simply goes into unnecessary detail about Tunney's political views. Tunney may perhaps be notable enough to warrant an article, but this one isn't it. Anarkinsey (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete -- In the grand scheme of things, Justine isn't very notable. She's a private citizen whose visibility has come mainly from being attacked publicly for her views in some vicious gossip blogs and tabloid rags, and that's about it. As such her Wikipedia article mirrors the tone of the sources about her, and it's not pretty. This article is mostly an extended attack against her, which easily falls afoul of WP:BLP, and should thus be deleted. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "grand scheme of things" is not Wikipedia's notability standard, it is coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, which is definitely fulfilled here. Occupy Wall Street was a historically significant event. Tunney has argued that she was the hidden leader behind the scenes of Occupy Wall Street; whether that is true or not I do not know, but that is what she claims. In any case, the article is clearly not mostly about that event. She is also notable for getting into a public argument with her former compatriats in OWS, and for her political opinions post-OWS. The Advocate is not a "gossip blog" or "tabloid rag". Neither is the Daily Telegraph! If no-one has written anything positive about Tunney's petition to make Eric Schmidt CEO of America, which even Tunney herself has admitted was "silly", then of course the article is not going to portray it in a positive way. I have acknowledged twice in the article the possibility, as discussed in a reference, that Tunney may be a troll rather than a sincere right-winger, but even this comes off as negative, so I can't win. If you have any suggestions about how to rewrite the article to make it more neutral, please feel free to edit the article. Update! Thanks to information contained in Tunney's own internet postings, I have found coverage of yet another event she was involved in, and added that to the article. Also, I think that Anarkinsey is abusing this deletion venue as a means to badger me into deleting bits of the article s/he doesn't like, as s/he admits that Tunney "may" be notable.--greenrd (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That the article is seriously flawed was the whole point of proposing this AfD. I assure you that I wasn't trying to badger you into anything (please assume good faith!); the point of saying that Tunney may be notable was to say that while I believe that the article in its current form is beyond help, from my understanding of Wikipedia policies, Tunney may be notable enough to warrant some kind of article (or at least that the administrator who denied my CSD request seemed to think so). Also, while your write-up on the "Oogle" incident is interesting, Tunney is only mentioned in passing in the source cited, so unfortunately I think it fails consideration as a second 'event' per "significant coverage" in WP:BASIC. Anarkinsey (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in the petition incident, she is not merely mentioned in passing. Not only is she notable for that, it surely deserves some kind of award for ass-kissing - I've never heard of any other American proposing their employer's CEO as President-For-Life. I mean, it's not just notable, it's an interesting and surprising (not to mention hilarious) incident too.--greenrd (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:blp, not seeing any signs of significant coverage to pass wp:gng. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first reason for deletion lacks specificity - fails BLP how? The second reason for deletion basically defies common-sense. If there were no significant coverage, I wouldn't have been able to write the long solidly-sourced article that I did.--greenrd (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1E requires that all three condition be met, but #2 and #3 clearly fail. #2 fails because she is not a low profile person. #3 fails because the event was significant and well covered nationally and internationally. There is no doubt that she has received significant and in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. I am One of Many (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To be a notable living person, you need sources talking about the person. She has that met just from the Occupany website, so the article should be kept. The article does need some work. Frmorrison (talk)

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

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

The result was keep, without prejudice to moving. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Doyle (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Contested speedy, decided to by-pass prod and take it to AFD. This does not really disambiguate more than one primary and one secondary meaning, so is unnecessary. PatGallacher (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move - Another editor has suggested moving Gemma Doyle to Gemma Doyle (politician) as it is not a primary topic. In which case this page will be needed to distinguish between the politician and the literary character, and moved to Gemma Doyle. This is Paul (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this should be moved to Gemma Doyle, there are three entries on the page. "Gemma Doyle" can be moved to Gemma Doyle (politician) -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a move discussion at Talk:Gemma Doyle, as the book character / book appears at least as notable as the politician. Anyway, someone may well have an idea of whether they want to look up info on Gemma Doyle the fictional character or Gemma Doyle the book, so a disambiguation page should make it as easy as possible to access what they are looking for; it's WP:USEFUL. Plus each entry is valid, so meets MOS:D guidelines for a dab as it is. Boleyn (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Materialscientist (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop Wood HS Alumni Gay Hate Crime[edit]

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

You shouldn't be naming someone on Wikipedia for their alleged involvement in a crime when they haven't been convicted, as per the policy WP:BLPCRIME ChicXulub (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REBUTAL: This individual was fired by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia due to his involvement. This has been reported in the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

Delete Where to start with this page? The title is completely not NPOV. The page itself exists purely to disparage an individual accused of a crime, no attempt shown to be NPOV and is written very tabloid news style and wikipedia is not the news. Potentially speedy under G10 as an attack page. Cowlibob (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete / REBUTAL: ***The page is discussing a current news event. While it may highlight the negative actions of some of those who were active in the event, it should not be deleted because of that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

Delete The subject of the article itself--the (alleged) physical assault against two gay men in Philadelphia--has not shown the requisite enduring significance or widespread impact to be a notable event. Furthermore, as this story is still developing, there is no evidence this event will have coverage in reliable independent sources beyond the current news cycle. Additionally, I agree with Cowlibob. This article is a total clustermess. The title is one of the worse WP:NPOV violations I can remember--serving to associate the high school with a criminal act.-- danntm ^T _C 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete If you can think of a better title, please rename it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

'Do NOT Delete' / REBUTAL: Hate crimes committed in 2014 in a major U.S. city are newsworthy. Period.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

Delete Numerous errors with the article--Futeb00l (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of four places the WP:SPA has put this material in an apparent attempt to smear the school (two in userspace, this article, and the article about the school). This is the worst of the four as it identifies one of the supposed perpetrators by name. It's horrific, but we're not a news outlet. We have severe BLP and NPOV issues. If the topic has extensive and long=lasting coverage it can be covered then, but in a more appropriate manner. Meters (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete / REBUTAL: The alleged perpetrator has been named in multiple sources, and was fired by his employer for his participation in the incident. Please read the references attached to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

- Note that the article has already been speedied once. Meters (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete / REBUTAL: The article was speeded once either out of error or due to the perpetrators or their friends trying to remove it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AA4455121 (talk • contribs)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this is not anymore notable than any other violent attacks that happened in the same week in the United States. It does not conform to WP:LASTING or WP:GEOSCOPE and does not even pretend to be NPOV. Orasis (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's lasting effects guideline says that an event is notable if it "act(s) as a precedent or catalyst for something else" including legislation. Because of this anti-gay assault, a Philadelphia law maker is going to try to make anti-gay assaults a gay crime. Currently, in Pennsylvania, there is no special protection on the basis of someone's sexual orientation or gender identity (only racial minorities are protected). I wrote about this on the article's talk page (which WIkipedia isn't letting me link to because of the weird three apostrophes that are part of the title at the end…) because I don't think I should like to the sources on this page(?). If this article somehow doesn't get deleted, the title of the article needs to be changed.-12.30.109.2 (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't link to the talk page because of the three apostrophes in the title problem, I'll post what I wrote there:

This crime is notable because it may cause the state of Pennsylvania to enact new legislation that protects people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Currently, there is no hate crime protection for gay people in Pennsylvania, there is only protection for racial minorities ("ethnic intimidation").

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Pa_law_Center_City_assault_on_gay_men_not_a_hate_crime.html
http://phillynow.com/2014/09/17/gay-bashing-not-defined-as-hate-crime-in-pennsylvania/
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Why-Gay-Couple-Beating-is-Not-a-Hate-Crime-275631451.html
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/09/18/gay-bashing-hate-crime-pennsylvania-petition/

See Wikipedia's lasting effects notability guideline. ("Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation.") If this is an inappropriate place for me to write this, please feel free to delete what I've written. -12.30.109.2 (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the main problem is NPOV, can someone fix the language so that it is more neutral and therefore doesn't have to be deleted? -12.30.109.2 (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of a precedent or catalyst for something else: Sometimes it is notable (Boston Tea Party), but sometimes it's not. Also, a change in Pennsylvania legislation is only a proposal, hasn't gotten any more attention than the incident, and may not even rise to Wikipedia notability even if passed; some states have specific hate crime laws, and some don't. --Closeapple (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTSOAP, possibly WP:COATRACK for Hate crime laws in the United States, and possibly WP:BLP, and still touching on WP:CSD#G10 (for which it was already speedy-deleted once). Cowlibob has it right in the above response, citing WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:PERSISTENCE. It only happened a week ago, and doesn't seem to be a national event for the general public, let alone an international encyclopedic topic of historic relevance. The article's creation, tone, and supporters have made it clear that it this is a textbook case of Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs, in which some specific thing tweaks already-riled advocates, who then decide there is no inappropriate forum to get the "big truth" out and anyone who won't give them a free soapbox must be mistaken or working for The Enemy. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not every injustice against gay people is the Stonewall riots, and not every public beating or other obnoxious crime qualifies for a separate Wikipedia article to memorialize it, even if it's nasty: see not only Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs but the related concept Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. There's also a WP:BLP and WP:CSD#G10 issue: This article's POV pushing extends to what seems like a premeditated rush to defame one specific person by name as far and irrevocably as possible, in case that individual is cleared or otherwise not destroyed to the advocates' satisfaction later. If the article is kept, there is no harm in referring to the person by description and relationship with the school, rather than by identifiable name, and then adding the name later if the person is named by police, indicted, or holds a press conference. But forcing the name onto Wikipedia, the 5th-most-visted site on the web, makes it harder to undo the effect; claiming that less-attended media sites are doing it too is not an excuse, particularly as it is based on leaks by unnamed sources. --Closeapple (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow / IAR delete per Closeapple. In particular we are not news, not a soapbox, the alleged crime is not notable, and it names people who have not been convicted. Moreover the POV-pushing, great wrong-righting. Even if a good article could be written the present one is not a suitable basis for it. BethNaught (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sundunes Condo Complex[edit]

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

Non-notable. I can find zero sources that suggest notability, and the article cites among its sources "Anonymous primary sources". Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. It doesn't appear to even merit inclusion in a parent article per WP:LOCAL (and yes, I know that's an essay not a policy or guideline). There are over 325,000 condo complexes in the US,[5] and most are not notable. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Balmer[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable (fails WP:BIO). PROD was contested back in 2011 by an IP. There appear to be a couple three sources out there but I'm not convinced they're enough to establish notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. The four books are all self-published or published by the subject's church. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable on an international spectrum, especially when he's self-published--Futeb00l (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete One of the sources is a dead link and the other is just a directory. On the other hand, it looks like several different sites offer the guy's sermons -- which could be a suggestion of notability. (It's a little hard to judge, because the sites offering this stuff are often...I'm not sure if this is the right word, but a bit incestuous -- and sometimes something can appear in ten places, but it's really just one dude with ten websites.) What I really would like to find is some independent reliable source suggesting notability, and I can't seem to find it. TheOther Bob 03:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a run of the mill local radio evangelist. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Identically Different[edit]

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

Band appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. I can find no reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage, only a couple of blogs. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not evidenced or even claimed, really ("reached mild popularity"??). PK T(alk) 13:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like "chart position = ?" even better... Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No substantive or properly sourced claim of notability here. That said, band member Jesse Labelle does have an article of his own — which is also pretty damn badly sourced, but does make an actual notability claim (charting singles) that passes WP:NMUSIC and is thus flagged for ref cleanup rather than outright deletion. Probably the best solution, thus, would be to redirect this to him (at least until he gets deleted as unsourceable too...) Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of specialist photographic suppliers[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. The list consists of four businesses, of which only one has an article. That business seems a bit dicey as far as notability is concerned. But in any case, the list a directory. That's a no no on here. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the opening paragraph (well, sentence actually) makes it clear that the purpose of the article is as a directory so it obviously violates that policy. Keresaspa (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AO, I'm not taking it personally. I just figure it's useful. - Denimadept (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. See also WP:USEFUL -- the answer to the question, "Why is this useful?" is that it will tell someone where they can find current purveyors of a service they need. It's a shopping guide. You could somehow rethink this so that it includes photographic businesses that are notable for providing unusual services, and don't limit the scope to exclude defunct companies, it might become encyclopedic. But I'm not exactly sure what that solution would look like. Could be moved to user space for more work. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already copied to a sandbox space. - Denimadept (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Rangsit University. Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Economics, Rangsit University[edit]

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

Completely unecessary Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only not notable but the content itself reads like an enrollment advertisement. Orasis (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rangsit University as a possible search term, but still not independently notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. This article also does not pass WP:GNG. - tucoxn\^talk 23:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ADVERT. There is already an article about Rangsit University.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this would be a useful redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Darryl Sichtman[edit]

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

Boxer and kickboxer who fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:KICK. The only sources are just tables of his record and neither seems to be from a reliable and independent source. As a kickboxer he's fought for no major titles and is not ranked in the top 10 and he has no fights listed at boxrec.com.Mdtemp (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. A known kickboxer with Glory potential. Just a kickboxer, not also a boxer. He already fought in the It's Showtime, Local Kombat (renamed SuperKombat after 2010), even Enfusion, and is the Tatneft Cup champion, you can check that Fightlife.ru link. A very solid promotion. Before he won the W5 event in Slovakia. He's probably in top 15-20 now. Strong record. I recommend notability tag instead as Papaursa. Thesavateur (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a new user interested in kickboxing articles, you might want to check the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think notability guidelines for kickboxers are pretty clear. Potential has nothing to do with notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potential is not grounds for keeping an article. He fails to meet the notability criteria at WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both GNG and WP:KICK. Everyone has potential, but not everyone can have a Wikipedia article. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Longest word in English. In case somebody wants to copy this and transwikify (if a willing victim can be found), I did not delete the article but only made it into a redirect to Longest word in English as suggested. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full chemical name for titin[edit]

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

Probably about the most useless page on Wikipedia right now. Trivia in the form of a 190K page that no one will ever actually read. Oh, there is a typo in the name at about the 10,000th character. Fram (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useless? Well, for one thing, you could try testing the visual editor with it, eh? Browsing for sources, there seem to be lots of people out there having trouble putting this famous word into their documents. If we can handle it, then we perform a valuable service in making it available. The topic is obviously an adjunct or appendix to the main article about titin and, per WP:SIZE it seems sensible to split onto this separate page. Andrew (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to Wikisource. The information, while interesting, possibly fundamentally violates WP:Technical as its usage is inherently technical and the intricacies of the structure as indicated by the word itself are both difficult (impossible?) for the "average" reader to understand and impossible to summarize in any other way as this is just one word that has no synonyms. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 19:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; what is the reliable source for this name? I couldn't verify it from pre-Wikipedia (ca. 2006) sources. Fram (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to WikiSource. Wikipedia simply is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thus, using an article for the full name of something is inappropriate to Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature.-- danntm ^T _C 19:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep or Migrate 90% of wikipedia could be classified as "Trivia" and useless. If anything this opens up curious minds to the world of Chemical naming lexicography and should be on this page as to WHY the name is so long. Or migrate this to the article on chemical lexicography as the longest, but, again, because of WP:SIZE this article should stand alone as a stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.8 (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to Wikisource. This article does not belong on Wikipedia because the whole page is devoted to just the word. The rest of the technical information is on the main article. The only reason to go to the page is for the novelty of the long word. Other long-worded articles have content other than just the long word. Thus, it is not an encyclopedic article by itself. Ideally, it should be merged, but since that is obviously out of the question, we should move it to Wikisource so we can still reference it. Once moved, it should be linked to in the main article. cyberdog958^Talk 22:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikisource. Articles need to contain more than a single word (even if that single word is longer than most articles). As has been previously stated, other articles about really long words are legitimate article that do more than just spell out the long word. According to comments on Talk:Titin, clear consensus has already emerged against putting the whole name of titin in the article. As such, I believe the best solution is to transwiki. As the longest word in any language, the full name of titin is definitely of literary significance and appropriate for inclusion in wikisource. We could even provide a link to the wikisource page on the Linguistic significance section of the titin article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Longest word in English. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this page is far from an encyclopedia article. Transwiki it to Wikisource if they'll take it (although wikisource:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes says that "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text") or to Wiktionary if they'll take it (although I'm skeptical that it'll meet wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion), or maybe add it to Wikidata's item for titin (wikidata:Q74314) if the Wikidata software can handle a 189,819-character string. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longest word in English, not independently notable. Giant Snowman 19:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reading the article on titin, it seems that since the protein varies from "~27,000 to ~33,000 amino acids", there isn't just one name to give the protein anyway. The content of the article therefore can't even represent what the article purports to be. It's just a meaningless plaything. Deli nk (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good keep rationale. I don't think this fits well in any project, but people are welcome to try to transwiki it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing encyclopedic about this. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there is any point of keeping this article in wikipedia. This is a IUPAC name. If we want to write IUPAC name of any of the large organic compound then the name will be long. Therefore, I am not sure that you can consider it as the largest word in any language. May be in Titin page it can be mentioned that the IUPAC name of Titin is the largest word in english. But I don't find any point of copying the entire name. This article is completely useless. Unatnas1986 (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the word is mentioned in the article titin, readers cannot really know anything about the word through the article. -- Truthteller2001 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Truthteller2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete or Transwikify. Unencyclopedic and not notable. —teb728 t c 10:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwikify. I'm not one to cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but even I have to suggest this is too trivial. Darmokand (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Akira Toriyama. Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ho[edit]

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

Non-notable work of manga. Has been tagged for notability for 3 years. I would be ok with a redirect to Akira Toriyama. Natg 19 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Akira Toriyama. Just curious but why didn't you just redirect the article yourself? if the redirect was reverted then you could have considered deletion options. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akira Toriyama as suggested. KK87, there were some other things that might have discouraged boldness in this instance. Thoroughly endorse the decision to bring this here and the suggested redirect. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. I can't find anything that can help pass this article our notability threshold. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akira Toriyama.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial/Modern Gender System[edit]

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

I initially PRODed this as "coined by a non-notable person in a single article." I revise my strong position on the non-notability of Lugones to "possibly non-notable", as one would have to sort through the sources to see which ones discuss her and which ones just cite her or are by her, but this theory still appears only in her work (the other journal articles don't even cite her, much less discuss her theory). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the author, this is a neologism discussed by one person. A discussion of cultural constructions of gender should be at gender. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -It's a full article based on a neologism.Orasis (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Roscelese and Troutman and Orasis, okay, everybody up there, plus an additional problem is that it is essentially original research by one scholar, an Argentinian-born radical feminist, which would be permitted in Wikipedia if there were reliable secondary sources commenting on the theory, explaining it, arguing with or against it, but I did not find sufficient evidence of this happening. I did not find the term used in my numerous newspaper sweeps; I did find a source here which discusses her theory at length by another scholar named Alison Bailey. My searches without filters did not find much which was not written by Lugones. QED delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've tried another search and found more hits on the titular phrase, but this nonetheless seems to be a situation where we'd discuss her work in her own article and/or under something like colonialism or gender if appropriate. The middle ground of having an article on a theory created by one person does not seem to be borne out by its treatment in the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to List of bus routes in London#100–199. Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 116[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Per WP:BUSOUTCOMES, these are usually deleted or redirected to list article. Prod was removed, but with no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most London bus routes of this age are notable as there is an extensive literature about them which I'll check when I'm next passing the London Transport Museum. Note that the nomination talks of merger to some list and so doesn't seem to have fully considered alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Andrew (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, my comment shows exactly the opposite; the mention of a possible merge shows that I have looked at alternative to deletion, that's why I mentioned it. List of bus routes in London would be the best redirect target if a merge/redirect was the consensus, but Buses in London, London Borough of Hounslow and List of night buses in London would be other possibilities. Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point of exploring the alternatives to avoid creating yet another discussion page. You're supposed to try that before coming here. Per WP:PRESERVE, deletion is a last resort, not the first thing to try. Andrew (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Individual London bus routes are deemed notable, Anyway passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that London bus routes are inherently notable and no indication of secondary sources to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per below - From past discussions & what not it's at times been a case of "It's in London so it's notable" and I tend to think the same although I evidently shouldn't!, Anyway nothing worth keeping & nothing notable about it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there seems to be sufficient reliable information about this route. In the alternate, this warrants merger into a list of London bus routes, not outright deletion.-- danntm ^T _C 19:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems informative & notable--Futeb00l (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT Charles (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bomination withdrawn per all above - thanks for your input. Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After one day? When most editors have not had time to see it? Let an uninvolved admin decide in due time.Charles (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—the article as it exists at the moment fails GNG. There is only one reference in the article, which is not enough to demonstrate notability. GNG says we need significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, which is not satisfied by a single footnote. Imzadi 1979 → 06:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Just a run of the mill route with no special claim to fame. Many London routes have been so redirected. No indication of significant secondary coverage outside the bus fan world.Charles (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. (Also, redirect to List of bus routes in London#100–199.) There are no sources indicating that this route is anything special. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 19:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, unless some reliable secondary sources are found that demonstrate GNG. At the moment, there's a single primary source from 2007; if this were a notable route, there should be plenty of reliable secondary sources available. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of bus routes in London#100–199. Individual bus routes are not notable just for being bus routes, and there is no evidence of sources to demonstrate that this meets WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free the Nipple[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFF; no indication the production of this film was notable itself. I don't think the crowdfunding angle qualifies nor the fact that theaters don't want it. Page is also unreferenced. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent references are provided sharpish. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per being an unreleased film whose production exceeds coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Per WP:NRVE, lacking use of sources does not equate to non-notability and simply requires editorial attention. It should also be spoken of in the article on director Lina Esco. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the production of the film notable? I would also note that one of the references offered is a piece written by the director herself, who has an interest in promoting her film. As pointed out by Graeme below, the campaign seems more notable than this film, perhaps the article should be refocused. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production itself may be considered notable through WP:SIGCOV, which explains that no source has to be solely about a topic, just so long as the source speaks toward the topic directly and in a non-trivial manner. Under WP:PRIMARY the director is allowed to offer information about her film, it is simply that her words do not impart notability. We have no expectation that the film will be subject of in-depth analysis or commentary until after it is released. And a refocus to be about the campaign would be a reason for editing or creation of a new article about the campaign, but not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after looking I found 4 newspaper articles on the topic, but I will say that the campaign is more notable than the film, which is only part of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of discussion among sources. — Cirt (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above comments, I withdraw this nomination. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Whoever wrote this article should have written it about the campaign first and then considered an article on the film. Having a standalone article for the film seems WP:UNDUE.--Laun chba ller 08:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no more "UNDUE" than any documentary film article which speaks about its film's production and inspiration and filmmaker. You're welcome to write one about the campaign, but as the film is sourcable and has coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3), we can let this stay and grow over time and through regular editing. As for the campaign, with both being creative children of Lina Esco, it and this film are deeply intertwined. The film will either outlast the campaign or encourage it, and the campaign can be included in the article about the film. More importantly, even were the campaign to be a blip and go away next week, the film will remain. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And thanks to User:MichaelQSchmidt for his edits. It's got the references it needs. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Fred Olen Ray. Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girl with the Sex-Ray Eyes[edit]

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

As unreferenced and non-notable Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 16:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little mention in reliable secondary sources and none of it in-depth. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect title to director Fred Olen Ray where available sources indicate it can be listed among his works. Was not "unsourced" when brought to AFD, but definitely fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I would support a redirect as well. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although currently unsourced, being a valid species means that there exist reliable sources. Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthrobacter luteus[edit]

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

As non-notable. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 16:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is an unsourced stub, but the academic literature shows it is very notable. I remind the nominator of WP:BEFORE.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moraine Music Group[edit]

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

This article is not a neutral description but an advertisement. Also doubtful notability, as MMG doesn't have to much Google Hits. Their artists, songs and songwriters have no influence on the notability of the company. The Banner talk 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the songs and songwriters do have an influence on the notability of the company when the company in question is a music publishing company. Orasis (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Article needs work and more sources but I think that the general notability is there. Orasis (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This could use attention from a country music expert, but I'm convinced they're notable. I've added a few mentions in other sources but (based on other mentions I didn't include) they are spoken about as a major force on the Nashville music scene. For plausibility, see the better-quality referencing of principal Brent Maher. Promotional language and COI problems should be fixed by normal editing.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

حمیدرضا ابراهیم زاده[edit]

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

WP:BLP-PROD removed without explanation. Violates WP:BLP as a biography of a living person without any references. Note that I arrived at this conclusion through Google Translate and would appreciate input from someone who understands Persian. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article on the same person (Hamidreza Ebrahimzadeh) was added to fa wiki by an WP:SPA recently. It claims that he has published numerous articles (the word used could include blog entries and such) and a book. He blogs in Farsi (his blog is at [6]). Nothing that seems notable. Perhaps someone who is a native Farsi speaker can glean more. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Carlossuarez46.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rehal Dynasty[edit]

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

I can't source this. It's kings were evidently Rehal (king) and Rehal II. [Rehal (king)]] says "Due to lack of sources available, the king Rehal is regarded as one of the lost Kashmiri kings." Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. The book "Lost Kings by Ahnya Venkatesh" doesn't exist. I had a cursory look at the creator's other contributions - the user definitely needs to be warned for creating hoaxes. utcursch | talk 00:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source cannot be verified and doesn't seem to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rondrick Williamson[edit]

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

WP:BLP, shading into advertorial territory, of a person with no strong claim to passing any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Further, this relies entirely on primary sources (his own website, the website of a TV show he was directly involved in, press releases, a commercial sales profile for his book), with not one shred of real coverage in real reliable sources. His involvement as a recurring guest on a nationally syndicated television talk show could potentially be a valid claim of notability if the article were sourced properly, but does not entitle him to keep a primary-sourced advertisement (and he was never one of the show's regular hosts, so it doesn't constitute a "get out of WP:GNG free" pass.) In addition, there's evidence that article creator User:VaNorris has a conflict of interest of some sort — the attached photo is listed as a corporate publicity photo, with the "source" in the file summary listed as "sent to me via email". No prejudice against recreation in the future if a good version citing good sources can be created, but this version needs to be deleted per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just ran a more thorough check through Google than I did before, this time eliminating results that matched a key phrase from the bio on his own website, and found nothing useful for WP:BIO purposes. I thought a couple of the sources given in the article looked acceptable, but the one in the Southwest Oklahoma news site, I just saw, only mentions him in connection with a local event. At most this one could be OK, but it certainly isn't enough. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Plus, article seems a bit too promotional for an encyclopedia.-- danntm ^T _C 17:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and lacks reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article was found to be an unambiguous copyright violation. (Non-administrative closure.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Francés[edit]

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

Effectively a resurrection of an article that was speedily deleted in January. The main reason to delete this article is that it is in Spanish, not English. I am not nominating this for speedy deletion because an article on this subject does not exist on the Spanish Wikipedia. I invite thoughts on whether the Spanish Wikipedia would like to have this article! Yaris678 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, if being in Spanish is the only grounds being offered for deletion. Articles written in languages other than English are handled according to the procedures at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Basically, if no one translates them within two weeks after being posted to that page, they are PRODded. I've never seen anyone contest a PROD posted after an article went the two weeks without being translated. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just took care of posting the article to WP:PNT. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have nominated the article for speedy deletion since it is still substantially a copyvio of the same text the previous version was a copyvio of: here. However, I have also blocked the creator of both versions for a user name violation: their username means "CAC Press". This means they cannot post to the article talk page contesting the speedy. If anyone else wants to, please do, but you should then radically rewrite it to eliminate the copyvio. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 ^Talk 07:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Synagogue Church building collapse[edit]

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

Article has but 2 sentences (lead) on the event and another lone reaction with a final section on speculation . This is NOTNEWS Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is AFD not WP:PR, only your last point is vaguely relevant to this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible article, but quite clearly a notable disaster. Would there even be a tiny chance of deletion if a disaster with this sort of death toll had happened in the USA or UK? Not a hope in hell. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable event, covered worldwide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oops, forgot this. Clearly notable, and more than just a church collapse when taking the context of the characters too. Clearly yet another pointed nomination from someone who seems to not entirely understand what AFD is for, e.g. ever heard of a stub? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy incident with Plenty of news coverage including the SABC, BBC, CNN, Reuters, The Guardian, and others.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable based on the number of fatalities. Wikipedia has a problem with systemic (first world) bias and the nominator should know better. Zaian (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Covered the world over. Orasis (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the death of 60 people is not notable enough for the nominator then I wonder what exactly should be notable for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.12.43 (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per others above me.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above clearly notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of trading companies[edit]

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

This list contains an arbitrary list of companies without any clear definition for inclusion to the list. Even if there was a clear definition it would be better to use a category rather than this page. Sargdub (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP, which states "it is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." The list also provides a useful navigation aid for Wikipedia's readers per WP:LISTPURP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerica. Numerous notable entries; valid list-article. If it helps the nominator, consider that "List of notable trading companie" is the implicit title; we just leave out the "notable" as it is understood. Thanks. --do ncr am 22:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment on the last two points, these are good points and I don't have an issue with a list as well as category for certains lists. My main concern is what qualifies as a trading company. Given the definition in the article I would say most companies are trading companies. All retailers, shops, distributors and importers exporters etc, the list goes on, I would say the bulk of all companies in existence would qualify. In particular I note that financial trading companies such as ABN Assets and Plus500 have been added to the list, if these also qualify then we can add most financial companies as well. I note that WP:WikiProject Companies has about 20,000 company pages on Wikipedia, so are we suggesting adding a large percentage of these to this article? Doncram your suggestion of limiting it to notable companies could help and the article could be renamed, but again definition is difficult, to have an article on wikipedia it must be notable so we might still be talking 5,000 -10,000 companies. I note that before this article became a magnet for spam entries, which is why I noticed it and proposed its deletion, most of the companies on the list were historic and an alternative could be to create a page of companies established before a certain date say 1800 so that we only have historic companies, but not sure this achieves the purpose of the creator of this list. Sargdub (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have updated the lead of the article to provide a more informative overview. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, notability of items within a list does not have to rise to the level of Wikipedia-notability for an independent article on each item. Red-links are useful, and is one way that lists are better/different than categories. Black-links where no article is expected can be okay. See wp:LISTN. I think it is pretty obvious that each item that has an independent article can be mentioned in a list, but also more can be mentioned (with sources). Standards for list item inclusion are to be discussed at the list-article talk page. --do ncr am 16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree that notable is understood given that only companies notable enough to have an article are listed. It is assumed that each company fits within the definition given in Trading company. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see my followup just above, and wp:LISTN. An AFD cannot decide forever that the list-item inclusion standards must be so high. Items can be red-links or black-links without articles. I personally don't care about inclusion standards for this one list, and restricting inclusion to simply items known to be wikipedia-notable on their own is okay by me. But continuing standards are for discussion at the list-article's talk page. --do ncr am 16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP.-- danntm ^T _C 05:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Amuthan[edit]

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

Absolutely no sources to prove notability, and appears to have been badly copied from RJ Balaji. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the General notability guideline and the notability guideline for entertainers. This seems like an up and coming person - once he has gained real notability there can be a Wikipedia article about him, but not before. --bonadea contributions talk 09:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any independent reliable coverage either. You don't get a Wikipedia article if you're up-and-coming. You must have already arrived. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bookitlive (Service)[edit]

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

Does not seem to have any coverage beyond adverts and social media. Fails WP:GNG. Charles (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability - Only stuff I've found is therapy related ... Fails GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Please suggest Edit required for article to be retained. I am new here and trying to understand why this article should be deleted when other wiki articles on other startup based business are the same. For example Dropbox, Aconex and Booking.com can it be refereed to admin who specializes in startups and online booking software. A Google search on bookitlive confirms coverage.Finella.oakley (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finella, I think you're confused. The other companies that you have mentioned have significant coverage and plenty of secondary sources to pick from, bookitlive does not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, not a bulletin board and not an advertisement space. Any company can be 'googled' however what is important is notability and an easy way to compare bookitlive to any of the companies you mentioned above is to do a 'Google News' search. See my point? Orasis (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements. It also borders on more of an advertisement than it does an article. Orasis (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Updated article to address the concerns raised by comments by adding reference examples. Has the same notability as other articles by similar startups and should not need paid PR media releases to justify its inclusion Finella.oakley (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The sources you added do not appear to be reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any decent coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A startup company that develops original software for Australia's top 500 companies has notability, the references used demonstrate that these companies are organisations that are using the product. Can you provide example of what references are required?Finella.oakley (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. WP:RS. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A7 by Yunshui. (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Miheso Swinnerstone[edit]

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

Non notable biography. Cannot find references to this person anywhere. Has minor claims of significance. Stickee (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May just pass A7, but not notable enough for an article. No reliable independent sources provided, and in a search I didn't see anything worthwhile in the two pages of ghits that came up. Peridon (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Adele Ray[edit]

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

no evidence of having done any notable work so far DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even fairly notable. Orasis (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't find sources, after searching, unfortunately.--Tomwsulcer (talk)`
Delete per above - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • [[User talk:Davey2010|(talk)]20:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. Ramesh[edit]

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

there is an assertion of notability, but there are few sources, and it's impossible to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio Ohc ^¡digame! 04:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very senior civil servant at a level which should give him automatic notability (and certainly would do if he was at this level in the USA or UK). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -The sources are solid and varied. He may not be notable to us but he does seem to be a notable person in India and within the UN. Orasis (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A subject with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is generally considered to be notable. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Orasis. Poor article, but not so promotional as nominator implies. And there are good sources that establish his notability. —innotata 04:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DataXu[edit]

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

Article of unclear notability. The article is nothing but WP:ADMASQ Wikicology (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep - Respectfully disagree with nomination for deletion. As stated in WP:ADMASQ, "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." This article is not Advertising because it is not "used to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an audience...to take or continue to take some action." The article contains no calls to action or attempts to persuade the reader that the company is better or worse than its competitors. The article is written from a neutral point of view, and serves as store of information culled from multiple sources of public record. With regard to notability: a company's history, leadership information, and legitimate product offerings generally meet the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, cf Cooliris, Codecademy, FindTheBest, and One Kings Lane. In addition to those fields, this article also includes references to acquisitions, notable public recognition, and the launch of a public consortium. Would recommend consolidation of Customers and Competitors sections into overview, but not article deletion. Dhfort (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:COMPANY: Independent coverage is significant: e.g. 65 hits in Google news from what can be considered reliable sources such as Forbes (e.g. this interview), Business Insider (e.g. this article), Yahoo News, and Forrester Research (e.g. this research report). The company has won one notable award (#5 fastest growing company in the US in 2013, which can be verified here). Some of the competitors listed such as MediaMath with similar coverage and revelance (e.g. as per the Forrester Research report) have an article already. I do not see this article as WP:ADMASQ; the article language is not sales-oriented nor it has an advertising tone. AVR (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)— AVazquezR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Article is WP:COMPANY. DataXu sufficiently meets the notability requirements for companies, commercial enterprises and for-profit businesses. The company cites 16 references on its Wikipedia page; its customers include Epson, Ford, Lexus and Sony, among others; and it has offices in eight countries. From their Wikipedia page, with the proper citation included: "DataXu was ranked the fifth fastest growing private company in the U.S., and the "#1 fast growing private company in the marketing and advertising industry" by Inc. in the annual Inc. 500 in 2013."--Bluenote78 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)— Bluenote78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don;t see this as a notable company. The references are mention or press releases. Fastest growing for a small company usually is the equivalent of not yet notable. The award is merely regional. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prefacing this discussion: I am an employee of DataXu, which represents a potential COI, but it should also be noted that I am a Wikipedian of more than 8 years, far longer than an employee of DataXu. I also respectfully disagree with nomination for deletion. Notoriety according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMPANY includes a definition of "notable" that states that a given company/organization must have multiple first-party, non-regional, reputable sources, which the article more than satisfies with several independent reputable sources. It should also be noted that the '"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"', and is not based on ones opinion of a company, but rather the direct reference not related to the product in reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubernooder (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC) — Ubernooder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Respectfully disagree with DGG. Inc magazine is a national publication and the ranking is highly coveted. See news coverage of this year's list here. DGG does not provide a definition of "small" so it's impossible to dispute, but according to the Inc 500 results, DataXu's revenue is greater than $100M. Finally, the article's author could easily have provided more than 100 articles written about DataXu from publications as diverse as AdAge, MarketingWeek, GigaOm and Boston Magazine. http://www.dataxu.com/media-coverage/. Skeats111 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)— Skeats111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Adding a note: DataXu includes a Demand-side_platform a category of company considered notable enough to have its own entry since 2012. This entry references an article written by DataXu's long-time CEO, Mike Baker, as evidence of the significance of this category of software company. Skeats111 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DataXu is notable enough within its field. There are references to DataXu on techunch, business insider and multiple (here and here) on forbes. It's at least on the same level as Rocker Fuel and MediaMath. That said, the article has a pitchy tone and should be toned down. Ferrante (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)— Mferrante3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted since most of the above are SPA's. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. DataXu might be evil, but it's certainly notable in technology circles, and of interest to consumer privacy advocates. The article does need to be improved to be more balanced. -- Beland (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources cited are more than enough to establish notability. However this seems to be a clear case of WP:CONFLICT so I'm going to add the appropriate template to the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tobinick[edit]

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

Not a sufficiently notable person for a bio - fails WP:PROF. There's some breadth of coverage, but not enough depth. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. have trimmed a bunch of copy and paste violations from the article. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources like this [7] may get him over the bar. He is the proponent of a controversial treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but are any sources on the controversy/ongoing legal action reliable enough for use, especially given the threshold of WP:BLP? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say the Science-Based Medicine pieces are sufficient to show notability. Likely not the notability this person wished when they had their article created on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another interested overview [8] As is this [9] and the Amgen statement [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that a self-described "daily science blog" actually counts as a reliable source. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter how much they write about him: their writings will not count towards notability. Or, to put it another way, we need sources that we could actually cite in the article, and I suspect that you'd object to anyone using these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SBM is probably reliable on WP:FRINGE topics per WP:PARITY, but is probably not the best sources to build a biographical article around. Yobol (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this is a topic about a fringe topic. Similar to Andrew Wakefeild or the CCSVI gentleman. I agree none of the sources are sufficient to support medical content but this is not really medical content. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia will appreciate in due course that this systematic attack, which presumably will succeed, is based on a few laboratories and pharmaceutical companies with large commitment and investment in developing an important treatment for certain brain diseases being beaten to the finishing line by a small player who they want to squash for purely commercial reasons. They have been at it for years. Quite appalling to watch from the sidelines.Horseman49 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)— Horseman49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Welcome new account. Really? A super expensive drug which supposedly treats some of the most common conditions known to people is being ignored by the manufacturer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ignored" is not the right word; the manufacturer has expressly disclaimed it as being "biologically improbable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and merge any relevant material to Etanercept.~~ Neutral I see no indication that the person meets WP:PROF. Sources seem much more focused on his treatment than him, and as such an article about him will lead to a WP:COATRACK situation. Better to discuss his treatment at Etanercept, and remove the coatrack. Yobol (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would work. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strike delete. New sources, especially the two LA Times articles have significant coverage of Tobinick. Not enough to change to keep, but enough to make me not sure delete is best now. Yobol (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Etanercept. Changed to Abstain. Changed to Keep because the article was recently expanded again with more reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC) ~~The person is not notable per WP:PROF. This is yet another WP:COATRACK article that will likely be deleted or merged. Let's get it done this time.~~ QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure he is notable within the article on etanercept. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is one of those articles I'd rather delete per WP:IAR. It is not really about Etanercept or Edward Tobinick. This is a collection of controversies.~~ QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a database search and found, for example, a 2002 article about him in the LA Times. And a 2012 article in the Sun-Sentinel. His h-index is 11, so I agree he's not notable as an academic. But he appears to generate enough coverage in independent sources to meet WP:BIO. In fact, the 2002 LA Times piece devotes coverage to the fact he hadn't published as much as some of his peers would have liked. I'll note, though, that it appears he's published in journals a good bit more in recent years. All in all, it seems he's attracted enough interest from reliable sources to have a short article on him and his work. I don't understand why having an article would be a problem, unless the subject himself objects to having an article here, which would be another story. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that's helpful. Do you think those articles are really about him (the human) or his work (his idea for off-label use of this drug)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: if the sources are about his idea, then one solution is to stop having a biography and instead WP:MOVE the page to something like Use of etanercept to treat neurological disorders. (The problem with this, though, is that I don't really see many WP:MEDRS-type sources. It's easy to document governmental things about his medical license or a few trivial personal facts, like where he went to medical school or that he moved his practice to Florida. I'm just not sure that we could put much in an article about the actual idea itself (rather than the legal problems he encountered after developing his idea). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject is more the controversy he has created around the use of this medication. He is notable for the controversy IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the sources are about Tobinick the doctor, and I don't see how we can separate that from Tobinick the person. It appears Tobinick has coverage in reliable sources for promoting a concept. This is connected to his person, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is about his treatment not him, a WP:COATRACK situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippy789 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added references to the Sun-Sentinel piece, two LA Times articles and a transcript from the Australian version of 60 Minutes. Sure - we don't have sources that say whether Tobinick likes spaghetti, plays golf or practices yoga, but we have plenty of independent coverage of him in the context of his work. If this were an author of history books, a physicist or an economics professor, that would be enough. I can't rationalize the thought that Tobinick's coverage needs to rise to a different standard. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think those articles are really about his work and not about him.Swimmingfan (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Another brand new user who has editing nothing else. This is not a vote so no worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And when people receive coverage in reliable sources for their work, we shouldn't have articles about them? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Analogy: Take a hypothetical "breakthrough" invention that received some news coverage, including interviews with the inventor. Would we create an article about the invention, or would we create an article about the inventor? Yobol (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G. Krishna Babu[edit]

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

there is an assertion of notability, but there are few sources, and it's impossible to ascertain genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio Ohc ^¡digame! 03:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The sources are not intellectually separate and even then the articles themselves do not give him any sort of notability. Orasis (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required by GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Malone (actor)[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable under WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails NACTOR + GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW KEEP ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsiman (video game)[edit]

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

NN video game. It hasn't garnered the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG - it seems also to have no realworld significance outside of the advertising campaign it was associated with well covered at Pepsiman. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources in the article alone are probably enough for a weak keep, but I remember reading about this game in print magazines on the 1990s too. I'll do some digging, but I'm fairly certain this one has the necessary coverage. (Ironically, there's another reliable source - IGN - at the main PM article mentioned in the nomination - http://m.ign.com/articles/1999/03/10/pepsiman-playstations-strangest-moment) Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This GamesRadar article and this GameSpot one might help to establish its notability. Tezero (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have enough independent sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek, demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. This is absurd, and worth taking to AN/I, but in the meantime all of these AfDs ought to be pulled as obvious failures of WP:BEFORE. Ravenswing 09:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone & sources above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Street, Manchester[edit]

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

An on-going planned development of office blocks and housing, not more notable than dozens of others currently existing. Not every office development is notable and this one - other than the trivial coverage all activity gets - doesn't seem different than the lot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HOME (Manchester) as a possible search term. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree, it can be recreated if it becomes notable. J3Mrs (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - Seems more sensible to Redirect than delete imho .–Davey2010 • (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW KEEP ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kominas[edit]

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

Second go around for this article. Was debated in 2006 with no consensus - nothing seems to have given them notability; moreover, we now have WP:BLP and there are no reliable secondary sources for anything in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Much though I deplore those awful "Seems notable" decisions made in profusion at AfD back in the day, it took me all of about ten seconds to find a raft of substantive and reliable sources, including the Boston Globe [11], the Washington Post [12], Rolling Stone [13], the Associated Press [14], NPR's All Things Considered [15], Newsweek [16]. This is such an egregious case of the nom not making the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD, that I checked his contribution history. I found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. This is absurd, and well worth reporting. Ravenswing 08:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please, nom, follow through on WP:BEFORE in the future. Its hard to believe you tried very hard to research this one. Plenty of reliable sources, per above. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the above sources, and others at CNN [17], The Guardian [18], and the LA Times [19]. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BAND and have added References.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Taunia[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, which is nudging a bit too close to advertorial territory in some aspects; referenced entirely on primary sources and citing not a shred of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that she actually passes WP:NMUSIC at all. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the article was created by User:RosieDiva. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Promo bs that belongs elsewhere. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natsuki kawase[edit]

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

A BLP with minimal sourcing of anything approaching what's necessary. In any event, there's a claim she was on a tv show, sold soap, is related to a prince, stands 1.71 m tall, a smattering of claims to fame, but not WP:GNG. The Japanese article has the same two allusions to sources but no footnotes as in this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original Japanese Wiki-article seems to be sourced by her employer's or agent's official bio, no secondary sources. Google pretty much shows her on social media, Youtube, etc. A search for my name would look pretty much the same.BayShrimp (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article explicitly states sourced from ja:川瀬奈月, so I guess it is acceptable to examine that article also? The jawp article is started by a Natskawa (note the name resemblance) and a lot of accounts and IPs with little to no edits outside the bio. The enwp article started as a redirect to the recently A7-ed Natsuki Kawase. Later translation added by Nancynancy31 just yesterday. The history looks autobiographic, and I would say Delete or even Speedy by A7 or G4. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not coming up with anything, such as a sweep of Japanese newspapers in English here, although I found a possible mention here (not sure if it is the same person as in the article). Not sure if being in a commercial for a brand of soap is all that notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt against recreation Natsuki Kawase has been twice deleted already, if anything is going to come up to save this article it would have done so in the past.--KTo288 (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Spedding[edit]

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

Transferring from PROD deletion request by 90.216.103.173, article is too substantial for simple PROD deletion. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems to have gotten quite a bit of substantial press attention. Here's an article by the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-25688529. BayShrimp (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Political and social career" section is full of WP:PEACOCK language like "Spedding has worked on behalf of the LGBT community, as well, in their struggle for equal rights." Of the sources that are provided, all but four of them are letters to the editor that he has written, which are in no way reliable sources. The only others are two press releases that mention him in passing, for example this one that says he's been elected to the Alliance Party Youth Executive Committee; and two self-published blog posts that violate WP:BLOGS and are not appropriate or reliable sources for his BLP. He thus clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. He's never even been a candidate for office, he just works for a political party and has written some letters to the editor.

Finally, the section "Human rights advocacy in Israel/Palestine" which is, apart from the section on his deportation from Israel, 2 lines long and notes that he founded a university Palestine solidarity society. As for the section on his deportation from Israel, it's a prime example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Every single one of the sources about his deportation is from within a few days of the incident, which was back in January. There is clearly no enduring notability in this event which received routine coverage in the news - "Palestine activist deported from Israel". The event itself was, per WP:NOTNEWS, notable enough to receive press coverage for a couple of days, but there is no enduring notability beyond that and he is not himself notable. Per BLP1E, each of the 3 criteria for deleting this article are met:

"reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" - true, the only other sources provided are blogs and letters to the editor he's written.

"If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" - again, aside from the routine coverage of his deportation, he's received no significant coverage in reliable sources, either before or since the event.

"If the event is not significant" - man was deported from Israel. There was routine press coverage on it and a week later, it was forgotten about.

As his political career fails WP:POLITICIAN and the only thing that he has received attention for is a single, routinely-covered news event, the article should be deleted. Tiller54 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete probably meets GNG but the overly promotional and WP:AUTOBIO nature of the article really makes it non-redeemable BlueSalix (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:blp1e and wp:politician. Once the poorly sourced (to blogs and letters he's written to newspapers) claims have been removed, the only thing that's left is the fact that he was once deported from Israel. There's nothing else to say. The incident is not significant, he remains a low-profile individual and the coverage stopped 2 days after the incident happened. Dcfc1988 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for much the same reasons as Dcfc1988. Article very largely puts a one-sided positive view of Spedding while only being cited to news articles by him (rather than about him). The news articles about his airport detention in Israel contain little if any biographical info. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep-- it seems like GNG is met. BLP1E would be an issue were it not for the fact that Spedding could be seen as high-profile (in his activism and politics). Darmokand (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William V. Chambers[edit]

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

This person does not seem to meet WP:Notable. No secondary sources are provided and I couldn't find out anything through Google other than a few mentions. BayShrimp (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per nom.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What would be needed here are independent reliable sources that demonstrate a significant impact (see WP:NACADEMIC). I see lots of journal articles (including the Group Psychological Abuse Scale article he co-authored, which is cited a number of times elsewhere - but 70 cites doesn't help meet any of the Notability criteria), but no significant independent coverage of him and his achievements. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the Group Psychological Abuse Scale is what's notable wouldn't it be better to have an article on that? BayShrimp (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds sensible. There doesn't appear to be much written about the author, but the Scale does appear in numerous works. Zambelo; talk 11:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I don't see much proof of notability, but WP:PROF is relevant here--Randykitty, DGG, can I ask you to have a look? Deor, do I remember correctly that you used to assess profs as well? Drmies (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete His most cited publication ,his "[HTML] The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A measure of the varieties of cultic abuse" is cited only 73 times, That's not significant in the field. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete His citation record is modest. While that does not prove non-notability (not something that can be proven, I think), it does not point to notability either. I don't know the mentioned awards, if they are major, that could change things, but actually I doubt it. I judge the scale only moderately notable, too, given that his article on it has been cited only around 70 times. --Randykitty (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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