Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 May	22 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayad's Yellow Trousers[edit]

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

Unremarkable unreleased short film that fails WP:NOTFILM and GNG. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for being TOO SOON and failing WP:NFF. Short films have it tough, and those by newcomers have it harder. The article tells us it will be uploaded to YouTube and Facebook when completed. But uness it gets some coverage it will fail WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence provided in the article or to be found in English or Arabic web searches to indicate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2015 (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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead by Morning (Book)[edit]

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

Non-notable book with virtually zero third-party coverage (had to differentiate between this and a well-covered book of the same name). The book is self-published and even the article itself admits the book was turned down by publishers "for years." --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage of the author and the book. [1] reddogsix (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK. Google brings up nothing, appears to be offered as a free ebook and published on 20 May. Might be a case of WP:TOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable book failure. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2015 (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. Overall consensus is that the subject has received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, thus qualifying for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katja Glieson[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of another editor who went to the wrong venue for deletion. I will notify him so he can make his formal case for deletion in the proper venue. Safiel (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many thanks User:Safiel Sorry for the inappropriate venue! My thoughts are that in the previous discussion, that there was no recognition that this page has only been written by the subjects manager and the manager alone, with no other contributors, and seems to only exist as a promotional tool. In addition, there seemed to be some consensus that the subject is somehow notable but I have failed to see any evidence of notability. Having a bunch of articles written about a video that the subject appeared in doesn't seem to satisfy the notability requirements on Wikipedia and I have seen no discussion proving otherwise. There have been no reputable news sources covering the subject specifically (eg. a Huffington Post article about subject), and those articles that do exist are only from random blogs who seem to have regurgitated a press release by subject's representation, and only cover an insignificant release by the subject that has not charted on the Billboard 100 (or similar), not received radio play and not received any other notable press attention. Also, upon reviewing the previous AfD process, it almost seems like there was more a discussion about the reason it was proposed for deletion in the first place - ie. a bad faith nomination by an editor who was angry that their page was deleted (because their subject wasn't notable) and simply wanted to come on and find another page which also seemed un-notable and nominate it for deletion to prove a point. I can understand this isn't desirable behavior but I wonder if the desire to reject this sort of behavior played into the reasoning and final decision to keep (although I assure you I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just offering a possible reason for the discussion not having explored all the issues). This, therefore, would seem to be the first discussion actually looking at the issues of whether the subject should have a Wikipedia page or not. I have no ulterior motive, from an objective standpoint I don't see the benefit of this page on Wikipedia, especially as it is entirely written by an editor with a close professional relationship. If subject was that notable, wouldn't she have gained enough recognition in the media for a completely partial and non-connected editor to create the article? That doesn't seem to be the case here, again, the only content being written by someone unlikely to be objective and neutral. The question is, would the article even exist if the subject's 'manager' hadn't written it? Jslix201 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a mess. According to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Katja Glieson, this page is proposed for deletion because of WP:COI (which is not suitable grounds for deletion) and lack of notability and being "of little value" to WP. The page was already proposed for deletion six months ago and the result was keep. WP:BADFAITHONOM was alleged and I have to concur. The nominator for today's AfD is a SPA opened earlier this month who has only edited this article and asked an editor who voted keep on the first AfD to reconsider. The nominator for the original AfD, while not a SPA, has had few edits and got in an edit war over this article over his assertion that subject is not notable (ANI). OK I have just done way too much research for this AfD, but my opinion is subject, although weak, meets the minimum requirements for GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. None of this seems to deal with the issues I've raised, or provides any evidence of notability, or of the article being in existence for any other reason than the subject's manager decided to create it for promotional purposes (which he seemingly has admitted to on the Talk page of the article!). It is true that WP:COI is not suitable grounds for deletion, but surely the motives for the creation of the article should be taken into account, and the point that it's CLEAR that subject is not notable enough that anyone other than the manager himself would have written the article. Just because an article was voted to be kept previously, does not mean that the issues have been thoroughly discussed or any evidence has been presented aside from opinions. Also, I believe it's policy to not discriminate against newer users? Thus making the argument that I have only edited this page moot, and, with all due respect to you, should not then devalue or dismiss my logical arguments for deletion. Jslix201 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I concur with the previous AfD. The subject meets GNG via sources provided. Weakly meets GNG, but still meets GNG. I'm not discriminating toward newer users; It's common at AfD to point out when people contributing to discussion have few or no votes outside of subject, indicating SPA. There's even a template to add that information (Template:Spa) but I think it's better to simply state outright. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the creator of the article, I felt I should say something and express my opinion. I was not present in previous discussion. I did try to follow the procedure for neutrality but do have to concede that it is unlikely that the article would have been created if it were not for me and I did originally find it difficult to be neutral. I'm sure you're used to dealing with sketchy music industry managers who try to get their artists published on WP. I don't feel I fit into that category and have no qualms about being honest. Katja is a great artist and has done some great shows and been in a notable video. But all of this discussion is tiresome and messy as you say, and frankly I would prefer that the article be deleted and only recreated at a later date when notability is not in question (if that should occur) and someone else unconnected to the subject (ie. Not myself) would feel compelled to create it so that the content is not written by me at all. It is true I have been the sole contributor to the article (other than cleanups) from a content point of view, and I don't like that fact. It was not my intention for it to be that way. I only want her to be on WP when she's truly and unquestionably notable. I don't know the weight of the opinion of the creator of the article and frankly am quite surprised at those voting to keep it given the arguments set forth in this and the previous discussions. But I thought I should say, in good faith, that I have no objection to deletion. Benjackson77 (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment —I'm not sure why "if it hadn't been for the person who created this article, this article never would have been created" is an argument. The article was created almost two years ago and has been edited by 48 accounts/people. In all likelihood, given her exposure, particularly with the recent meme, someone would have made an article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an argument persay, just an assumption of fact given A. I've been the only contributor of content (despite the 48 editors) and B. The creator of the meme (and performer in the other 3 rap battle videos) has not had an article created about her, so I'm guessing it hasn't sparked enough interest for an article. Benjackson77 (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

....why would anyone else create an article about her if there already was an article about her? —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering the article solely on its current condition and merits, I see several reliable sources that cover Glieson, so the article passes WP:GNG.

Addressing the concerns of the nominator: a conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article. If a new article is created that is blatantly promotional but can be fixed—rewritten in a neutral tone with reliable sources—we fix it rather than delete it. That seems to be the case here. Yes, the original editor may have had a conflict of interest, but many independent editors have worked on the article since then. That mitigates any concerns that may have existed at the creation of the article over a year ago. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! That's good news! So given this, can we remove the warning about conflict of interest? Having that at the top makes the article seem dubious and as you say, there have been other editors and the issues have been resolved a long time ago since I created it. I just wanted to be honest and clear that if there is an ongoing problem I'm not adverse to deleting it if needed, to act in good faith. Benjackson77 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I procedurally nominated this on behalf of another user, the subject satisfies WP:GNG and I see no valid reason for deletion. Safiel (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references establish notability at a glance (unless someone who's dug into them comes up with evidence otherwise). De-promofy and this should be fine as a Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient RSes: she's mentioned in numerous non-trivial articles. It passes GNG. I agree with David that it needs de-promofying but that's a separate issue and no hindrance to remaining.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several of the Rses do not mention the artist by name, but a handful do. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that the references provided within the article are sufficent to establish WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pretty much my last AFD comment - The promo needs removing but overall notability is there and IMHO it simply needs tidying not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 28 May 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LearningRx[edit]

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

This article has "referenciness" but the references are not reliable independent sources. The closest it gets is a recycled press release in the New York Times. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lot of topics from years back have references from old coverage, but still need to be kept on Wikipedia. Just because they're old topics, doesn't mean they don't require coverage on Wikipedia. This meets the Wikipedia General Notability guidelines. The company is a huge chain with branches all over America.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So they might, but this one doesn't. You restored a bunch of primary and unreliable sources. What it needs is reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most are not primary, they are independent.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: LearningRX has been around for a while but it didn't show any benefits nor received any positive feedback from research or practicing psychologists. Lack of reliable sources clearly demonstrate this point.Wiki-shield (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishash/Archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Please keep an eye on this user (permanent link). Cunard (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also many results can be found for this subject in the search options provided above. It is notable and been discussed for a long time to be added.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not be misled by what at first glance appears to be RS coverage, e.g. Chicago Trib. The entries I've seen are either from "community contributors" or are press releases (often even with the press release boilerplate still appearing at the end). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old version of the article before it was blanked out.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hurley, Dan (2013). Smarter: The New Science of Building Brain Power. London: Penguin Books. pp. 58–64. ISBN 0698148495. Retrieved 2015-05-25.
  See https://books.google.com/books?id=7ZDIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT49 for the chapter titled "LearningRx". The book discusses LearningRx for roughly seven pages.
2. Hurley, Dan (2012-11-04). "The Brain Trainers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  The article notes:
  
  On this Wednesday evening at the Upper Montclair, N.J., outlet of LearningRx, a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter.
  “We measure every student pre- and post-training with a version of the Woodcock-Johnson general intelligence test,” said Ken Gibson, who began franchising LearningRx centers in 2003, and has data on more than 30,000 of the nearly 50,000 students who have been trained. “The average gain on I.Q. is 15 points after 24 weeks of training, and 20 points in less than 32 weeks.”
3. Lima, Christina (2006-11-30). "LearningRx offers help to struggling students". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  The article notes:
  
  Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year.
  Clients don't typically arrive by doctor referral. What's being sold is cognitive improvement by coaching. All clients are tested, then assigned to a trainer. Most are children and teens who face challenges with such skills as reading, concentrating and problem solving and who often have low grades, said Linda Conlee, owner of the Lake Oswego franchise.
4. Miranda, Maricella (2010-06-27). "New option for struggling students - Program uses drills instead of tutoring to 'train' the brain". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  The article notes:
  
  She decided to enroll her children in LearningRx, a Colorado-based program that works to strengthen the brain's cognitive skills so students can learn more quickly and easily.
  The program first came to Minnesota two years ago. Since then, four more LearningRx franchises have opened in the state, including the newest center in Eagan.
  Although the program bills itself as beneficial for anybody, students with cognitive and learning disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia, are flocking to it. Some parents say the benefits are so great that their children can go off their medications.
  But experts remain skeptical that a program could produce such dramatic results.
  Canan Karatekin, associate professor of child development at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development, said research shows it's possible to improve cognitive functions. But she says programs, like LearningRx, should be independently researched.
5. "Program designed to make learning easier". Daily Herald. Associated Press. 2009-02-21. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.
  The article notes:
  
  LearningRx is used for a variety of learners, including students with learning disabilities, K-12 and college students who want to improve their academic skills, adults wanting to improve their job performance and senior citizens who want to stay mentally sharp, as stated in a LearningRx Inc. flier.
  ...
  Ken Gibson, founder of LearningRx, discovered through his research that 80 percent of learning problems are cognitive weaknesses, Winchell said.
  ...
  The program is designed to strengthen weak underlying processing skills, including attention, working memory, processing speed, logic and reasoning, visual processing, auditory processing and long-term memory. These skills are the foundation of a student's ability to learn and are the basic mental abilities used for thinking, studying and learning, according to LearningRx.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LearningRx to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per the reliable sources listed above.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Note: I voted "delete" at the last AFD.) I'm rather shocked at the state of this article and at the edit warring taking place since this AFD was initiated, essentially between Nom and Taeyebaar. At the moment, the article is almost completely blanked so it is hard to see what we are using as the basis of this discussion. I looked at the last pre-revert edit by Taeyebaar, and still do not see RS that would bring this up to notability. I do not understand why Taeyebaar is so determined to keep the article when there is so little about this company. And I'm not clear on what sources SilverSurfingSerpant considers to be reliable of the ones above -- it would be good to be more specific. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist Dan Hurley's book published by Penguin Books provides around seven pages of coverage about LearningRx. Hurley's article in The New York Times also provides nontrivial coverage of the subject. There is also detailed coverage about LearningRx's history from The Oregonian, St. Paul Pioneer Press, and the Associated Press. I have added some of that information to the article. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article without unreliable sources like Yelp, as well as expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said in my comments on the first AfD, I think that the article conflates LearningRx as a franchise business and the whole issue of cognitive training. Cognitive training is covered elsewhere, so there only needs to be links from this article. The questions that remain for this article are: is this about the franchise as a business? and: Does LearningRx have a unique product? Reference #1 is about the former. None of the other references address the latter. I'm still struggling to see what it is about this company that is of interest. LaMona (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hurley's book and the newspaper sources (like The New York Times article and the St. Paul Pioneer Press article) discuss how LearningRx as a franchise was established.
Sample quote:
The LearningRx program stemmed from the work of Dr. Ken Gibson, a specialist in visual processing from Wisconsin, and his brother Keith Gibson, a clinical psychologist.
The two collected data for more than 15 years, showing that short, intense cognitive training helped patients stay more on task, recall facts more easily and process information faster, the company said. They developed a series of exercises and held an academic conference in 1985 publicizing their findings to educators and doctors.
The brothers refined the exercises for 16 years while they tested the program and relied on the input of educators and psychologists.
Their work led to LearningRx, which opened its first clinic seven years ago.
This is enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. "Does LearningRx have a unique product" is not a notability criterion at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policies provide only very general concepts of notability. The notability criteria there are not a substitute for the human intelligence that is creating WP, nor should it be considered absolutely complete. We do get to use our brains in this process -- otherwise, WP could be entirely created by bots. I'm trying to figure out what makes this company of interest, not just whether it can be shoe-horned into some policy category. To my reading, it hasn't done anything worthy of note, and the fact of a few routine articles about it doesn't make it of interest. LaMona (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's this got to do with interest??? There are hundreds of articles here on Wiki covering boring topics, but they are well covered thus satisfying general notability.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If articles were kept based on interest, then only articles that the average Wikipedian (Wikipedia:Systemic bias#The "average Wikipedian") found interesting would be kept. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline takes the focus off interest and places it squarely on sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources therefore meeting the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userify or Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH currently. No problem with removing the claims, and reducing to a stub iff the org has coverage. Conflation of a business and a scientific claim. Classic PR stuff. The latter should be held to WP:MEDRS. Widefox; talk 11:06, 29 May 2015 (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 Veden Manor. With the redirect having already been done. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Petterson[edit]

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

Little independent notability, does not even list death year. Link to an offline article as well as a census entry which does not confer notability. The article is mainly a WP:COATRACK for listing his (admittably impressing list of) descendants. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the nomination, the article creator has redirected the article to Veden Manor, which looks to me as if it is notable. PWilkinson (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect looks like a good choice. The original article was mostly unsourced genealogical information. Since it was the article creator who redirected it, I think we could almost speedy-close this as a kind of G7 situation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cecelia Specht[edit]

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

Appears to fail GNG, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found nothing and she's never seemed to have something more than a few episodes of a show. Not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bit actor, non-notable roles, lack of depth of coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only source is IMdB, and that is not a reliable source. Non-notable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in this article shows they're notable- the article just says they did some university degrees and is married to a notable person. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2015 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Globe International[edit]

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

Reads like advertising and fancruft based on related sources The Banner talk 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion in 2010. I closed that discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International) as Keep based on reliable news sources that User:Drmies found. At that time I also cleaned up the article and removed contentious BLP material, leaving it like this: [2]. I got involved again in Jan & Feb 2011, cleaning it up as it had drifted into a long list: [3]. This time I left it like this: [4], which includes the concern tags that it relies a lot on primary sources. I also moved the name from Miss Globe International to Miss Globe Organisation based on my research. In 2013 there was another Afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe Organisation, based on this version [5]. There was no support for the nomination, and two keeps. The discussion was closed as No consensus. In March of this year an IP editor changed the Miss Globe International redirect into a duplicate article: [6]. So now we have two articles with the same content, but different names. My suggestion is that the redirect is restored, and the discussion takes place on the article with the editing history: Miss Globe Organisation, which would make this the third AfD on this article. Now, there are a number of mentions of the Miss Globe pageants: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc, plus the numerous foreign language sources. As has been brought up in previous discussions, the Miss Globe pageants do get media coverage, sufficient to meet our notability guidelines: that is, it has had significant coverage in several independent reliable sources - nothing major, but just enough. The problem is not so much the notability of the pageants, but the messy nature of the article, and that nobody is willing and able to sit down with the article and write it up properly. Added to which is the very vague information regarding the history of the pageant. The claim by the organisers is that it goes back to 1925. I couldn't find much on that. And just now I came upon this blog: [12], which feels that there is no real history going back to 1925. Interesting. However - while the article is problematic, it does meet notability guidelines. So this will be a Keep from me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at current sources it appears that Miss Globe International would be the better name for the article. I think it changed name in 2011 to Miss Globe Organisation, but has since gone back to Miss Globe International. What I propose doing is renaming Miss Globe Organisation to Miss Globe International, and then merging the history as appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable, passes WP:GNG with significant coverage as shown by Silk Tork. Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination was for advertising and fancruft based on related sources... The Banner talk 18:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs editing not deletion. As above the topic has sufficient coverage to establish notability and I see SilkTork has sorted out the duplication of articles. While the article needs improving it is not the "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" that the deletion policy would say we should delete. Davewild (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild reverence[edit]

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

Despite the title this article is primarily interested in the fish which are the subject of the film and the film's creator. I can find no evidence that the film itself is notable and the article itself is borderline opinion piece, borderline advertising. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I don't necessarily agree with the nominator about the content of the article (it's an article about a documentary, so the synopsis is going to summarize the film's content, which happens to be about steelhead decline -- you really can't synopsize the film without describing this phenomeon, at least from the filmmaker's viewpoint), I do agree that this film is not notable. It is Anderson's first film as a director; his previous career was as a professional skier, so it's not clear that he's going to receive a lot of attention for this effort. The film is self-produced (he founded North Fork Studios expressly for the purpose of producing this film) and self-financed (apparently through Kickstarter), so there won't be any press about the film's financing. It has not received any notice press yet, outside of the limited Pacific Northwest fly fishing community. (His film does get mentioned at a number of blogs in that community, but no reliable sources.) If it does, then the article can be created then, but not now. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. While I too disagree with the nominator's interpretation of the article on this documentary film, I used some smarts and found the correct film title and was thus able to make some improvements and added cites to the article. The issue covered is real and of concern to the Pacific Northwest, but despite it screening at multiple film festivals, it has not (yet) gained the coverage to meet inclusion criteria. Allow undeletion or recreation only if or when WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly the same reason as WikiDan61- the sources are limited to a very select community, so fails WP:GNG and wP:NFILM. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2015 (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) — Yash! ^(Y) 02:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Ryu[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Los Angeles is a huge city with only 15 councilmembers for a city of 4 million. It has the highest ratio of constituents per councilmember anywhere in the United States. Therefore, being an Los Angeles City Councilmember is notable. Flawed nomination. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – Los Angeles, being the very huge city that it is, is very notable. So are its councilmembers. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia does not confer inherent notability on city councillors in most cities under WP:NPOL, we do accept articles about city councillors in major, internationally famous metropolitan global cities such as Los Angeles — that is considered to satisfy NPOL #3. The article certainly needs improvement, but the volume of coverage will increase given that he only just won election a week ago — so the fact that the article isn't already in a GA/FA state has no bearing on anything. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Los Angeles is among the biggest cities in the world and as one of just 15 council members, Ryu seems to clearly pass the WP:POLITICIAN threshold. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2015 (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. Consensus was to delete this article, while leaving open the possibility of a differently formated article on the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of Australian professional football teams[edit]

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

This article claims to be about the colors of the teams, but doesn't actually mention the colors, nor does it have any sources. Only content is an uncredited copy-and-paste move from Australian_Football_League#Current_clubs Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - top league in the country and discussion of colours of leagues has been a topic elsewhere. There have been controversies and the AFL has some interesting rules to avoid colour clashes (away team /white shorts except Swans etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't argue that it's not a top league, but what is offered by this article that isn't already at Australian_Football_League#Current_clubs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:A10, per Ahecht. There is no scope to expand this to a useful article. The customs relating to clash guernseys and coloured shorts are useful content, but that wouldn't fit on a page of this name. Aspirex (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, which is just a copy-paste job that doesn't really discuss the subject. I expect that an actual article talking about the colours of teams in all codes might be interesting, and a delete decision here shouldn't preclude an article being written on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation under another format, along Lankiveil's lines. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation per the above comments; userfy on request. In any case, it has been a week and there is still no mention of colours. St Anselm (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2015 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagawati Prakash Sharma[edit]

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

Page created by employee of University to promote them. Salt and burn. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll simply comment for now as academics is not my comfort zone but I thinking salting is unnecessary as the only other time it was deleted was a "blanked by author" last month. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In the Indian system, vice chancellor is the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post" as demanded by WP:PROF#C6. The question should be whether Pacific University Udaipur is a "major academic institution" as also demanded by that criterion. My feeling is that membership in the Association of Indian Universities is a reasonably clear test for this, in which case it passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. University vice-chancellors are generally notable. Yes, the question is whether this is a major academic institution, but I think he scrapes through. Some rather over-zealous comments from the nominator, I feel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated by David Eppstein, in the Indian system, vice chancellor is the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post" which should satisfy WP:PROF. The university, though not one of the most prominent ones, seems notable enough to be considered close to what we call a "major academic institution", if not that. — Yash! ^(Y) 02:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes a criteria of notability for academics. The article could use improvement, but the subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2015 (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. Consensus was that this product does not meet the WP:General notability guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planetimer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sign of WP:NOTABILITY in article; Google results are a sea of sales sites, rather than anything indicating real notability. User ID of article creator is the same as name of item's inventor. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow, I wish I had been here in August to say delete as searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found nothing, non-notable watch article which should've been deleted the first time. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is just spam, written by the guy who invented and patented this strange timepiece. DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting mechanism, but one whose encyclopedic notability is not demonstrated in reliable sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for the editing and propositions to improve my article and I’m glad to read the critics.
Based on Wikipedia criterion, I’d like to appeal to the nomination of Planetimer article to AfD:
1) This article is not original research, as the content corresponds and in accordance to proven and investigated theory of mechanics and by essence describes the aggregates as assembling solutions of gears, at least based on advanced by NASA gear bearing technology (http://itpo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/gsc_14207_1_gearbearing.pdf) applied to watch mechanics;
2) In spite of this developments are not as design as really qualitatively new technical solutions the article was written in neutral point of view manner, as a kind of mechanical watch realization;
3) The article content is Verifiable as patented by WIPO, has passed the expertise by the essence by Swiss and Netherlands accredited experts and published in Worldwide database with the reference on the bottom of the article;
4) This article was written by author and owner of patent rights, so it has not copyright problems a priori.
Best regards,
Sergiy Sheyko--www.planetimer.com 15:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiy Sheyko (talk • contribs)

Sergiy, none of that conquers the concerns that are being expressed by multiple editors above, that this article fails Wikipedia notability standards. We're just not finding significant secondary sources talking about the planetimer, which is what our General Notability Guidelines call for. If you want to conquer that concern, you'd best find some verifiable secondary sources discussing your invention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nat, yes, formally you are right; really, I do not paid attention to publish in any others independent sources. However, by essence the topic describing the assembling of well proved and verifiable solutions doesn’t need additional confirmation, it is obviously not the fake! Moreover patent expertise is much more professional, as many others magazine’s examinations.

By appealing to DOwenWilliams about “strange timepiece” – in spite of elegancy, these solutions are the most optimal and reliable for realization of watch gear reduction mechanism, allowing at least to create the slimmest movement.
www.planetimer.com 20:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiy Sheyko (talk • contribs)

Delete. @Sergiy Sheyko: while the claims of the article are true, most likely, this does not solve the problem of notability. Just being true and useful is not enough to be included in Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines; they most likely will not be changed to fit your article.

For your information, I would also point out that being granted a patent is not scientific validation in the slightest - a few perpetual motion machines have been granted patents. It is, in essence, legal validation: for some invention that does something in some way, intellectual property is granted to the inventor over any machine that does a similar thing in a similar way, and the patent examination aims to check that the patent can be granted under law (that usually forbids over-broad patents, patenting of abstract ideas, and bear other limitations). Whether the method does, in fact, do what it claims is irrelevant. Tigraan (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be. @Tigraan: The perpetual comparison is inappropriate. These devices are in full concordance to physics, and simply they present another visualization way by optimal arrangements of gears and drivers. If the devices do the same in different ways it could not be irrelevancy, especially if it goes about esthetics, and if new solution is more reliable along with taking of less volume.

Please not to be so formal, reasonable evaluate, if somebody presents in Wikipedia qualitatively new obvious technical solution what the problem?! Moreover patents are really disclose and prove, however the required notable articles only presents.
Sergiy Sheyko (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not notable. Also, obvious WP:COI. PianoDan (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be. @PianoDan: It have not seen any the critics by the essence, only formal criteria and any modification how it should be. Obvious sabotage.

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. Davewild (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Agal[edit]

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

No indication of significance, page created by subject himself for self promotion. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely fails notability guidelines because none of the sources discuss the subject in detail, only mentioning the name does not indicate significance. I also think that some of the sources are not reliable.— Supdiop ^talk 12:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG -War wizard90 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone appears to have mistaken this place for LinkedIn. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar profile [13] and the evidence within the article makes it clear that he does not pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Both the balance of arguments and the relevant BLP considerations favor deletion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Schneider (Florida dentist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: WP:PERP seems to apply more here, since the victims were not renowned national or international figures, it is WP:TOOSOON to call this a "well-documented historic event", and he has not been convicted in a court of law. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Two of the keep !votes here were either from single-purpose accounts or sockpuppets.

Keep. BLP1E doesn't apply, since the alleged abuse has been going on for nearly 40 years (according to Sarris), and Schneider has had brushes with the law before (including once in 2000). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete. NOTNEWS really applies here. It is admittedly serious if a dentist has performed unnecessary procedures on children (especially if it is extraction of permanent teeth). Careful investigation, proof that this has taken place, would be useful. The international media has whipped up a firestorm of rumor and innuendo, though, about one dentist, including a phone video of a child apparently screaming in a dentist chair. Some complaints are that he capped teeth that should have been pulled, others that he pulled teeth that should have been capped. It is possible that he's looked after poor children who had not properly seen a dentist, who had teeth in more poor condition than a non-medicaid dentist. There are many many incompetent professionals, it is alarming that while nothing is proven about this particular one (though it is likely he is incompetent or unethical) a small case has blown up to an international news story with many confusing and contradictory accusations arising suddenly. A tabloid newspaper can just join the rumor mill. Wikipedia can be more thoughtful.Createangelos (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: There are a great deal of sources available speaking toward this individual's many-years-long series of alleged multiple and repeated crimes, but under WP:PERPETRATOR we need tread lightly. The historic significance of the crimes is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role, and we have those in spade. WP:BLP1E is less applicable as we have coverage of the years long and repeated accusations of the different offenses of 1) alleged "Medicaid fraud" and 2) alleged "child abuse". BUT a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Is there such an article? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not currently. But it might be possible to rename this article and change the focus to refer to Schneider's alleged crimes rather than Schneider himself. Perhaps the article could be called Jacksonville dental abuse scandal or something like that. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can't write an article about his "crimes" at this time, because none of them are verified. Everything is "alleged" and "accused". --MelanieN (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BLP1E doesn't apply,. end of story. this is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but WP:PERP applies. His victims were not renowned national or international figures, it is WP:TOOSOON to call this a "well-documented historic event", and he has not been convicted in a court of law. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As has been stated already, BLP1E doesn't apply as the as the abuse went on for several years, making the abuse multiple events. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the sockpuppet wasn't being used for vote stacking (since the puppetmaster didn't also !vote here), so that's not entirely relevant. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though the article is almost wholly negative, it's well-sourced, and the sources show significant coverage over a long time period. Should it be moved to Howard Schneider (dentist) though? The word Florida seems unnecessarily specific. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is another practicing dentist by the name Howard Schneider, who lives in New York. Many people have gotten the two mixed up, and the Dr. Schneider in New York has received hate mail and threats from people confusing him with the Florida dentist, so I thought it best to clarify in the title that this article was about the Florida dentist, not the New York one. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually the sources DON'T show "coverage over a long time period". All the sources are from May 2015. --MelanieN (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This source is from April. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, April 29. Good thing you caught MelanieN in that gross overgeneralization. Can we have an overdue close on this, please? EEng (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. May soon become more relevant and used to describe an abusive dentist or overtreating dental clinic. i.e. "My dentist is a Schneider", "Schneideresque dentistry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mny5339 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Mny5339 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is not a reason to keep an article. --166.20.224.11 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? That argument is textbook WP:ATA#CRYSTAL: "It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try." --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is alleged that the abuse goes back many years, but all of this is being reported only in the last week, so it's BP1E and/or TOOSOON. EEng (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this happens to be one of those "wikipedia not being news" cases, close the article down for now, and wait to remake the article until the dentist gets enough coverage to be more than just a news article. It'll be interesting to see where the backstory of this evil scumbag will go. Seriously, stay the hell away from that dentist. 和DITOR E tails 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Violates WP:BLP and WP:PERP. Everything is "alleged" or "accused". None of the allegations against him have been proven, they are just allegations - apparently most of them filed by plaintiffs in civil suits; if ever there was an unreliable source, it is the claims made in a civil suit! Others are complaints of child abuse - complaints which anyone can make, justified or not, and the authorities must investigate. If he ever gets actually convicted of anything, we can rewrite the article. In the meantime, it is a mess of unverified claims and innuendo, and should have no place at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP isn't enough, then I'm happy to go with WP:IAR. We're an encyclopedia. We're not a tabloid, and we're not a police blotter. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2015 (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 deleted as G4 by User:Chrislk02 (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Edwards (publicist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Only sources are press releases. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was a recreation of an article removed in April.. The Banner talk 19:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Due to failing to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Paterson (baseball)[edit]

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

Long career as a manager in the independent leagues, he is now with Sioux Falls in the American Association.. doesnt satisfy BASE/N or GNG. Article appears to have been written as a vanity page or resume. Spanneraol (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Notable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC) (Striking comment by banned sockpuppet. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Managed some not particularly notable basketball teams, and appears to be vanity page. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASE/N and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual due to insufficient coverage. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Mellowed is no longer an editor in good standing, and that therefore his !vote does not count. Ma^t_chups 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. This comment was written while he WAS an editor in good standing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn prior to any further input

Search Press[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Although the company claims to have won two awards from the Independent Publishers Group, it is not clear how notable these awards are, or what level of notability they might impart to the company. It does not appear that any trade publications picked up the story, or has covered this company in any way. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn -- too soon for an AFD. Giving the article time to grow. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 21 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Gartrell[edit]

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

Relatively unremarkable baseball player. Low round draft pick, never played in the majors, currently playing in indy ball. Failed baseball notability guidelines and no evidence of passing GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From San Francisco, but the San Francisco Chronicle has no coverage of him that would surpass WP:ROUTINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this piece from the Gainesville Times would count towards GNG, so if we find enough pieces like this one, I might change my mind. (This also might, but I'm unfamiliar with the source.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable player, fails BASE/N. Also appears to fail GNG, having not received enough non-routine coverage. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing in independent baseball does not establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future human evolution[edit]

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

Article is poorly sourced and appears to be mostly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Only one of the cited sources contains the word "evolution," and I find no evidence that this is a subject/topic that is discussed in enough reliable sources to merit its own article. Plus, there's already a discussion of evolution in modern humans in this section of the existing article on human evolution. If anything here is salvageable, I suggest it be merged there. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nope —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom pretty much - extensive sythesis and original research. Whatever isn't belongs in the Human evolution article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly-sourced synthesis. The products mentioned towards the end of the article are real and probably independently notable, but their connection to the ostensible subject of this article is non-notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can hardly believe I am the first to quote WP:CRYSTAL, but here we go. To be fair, I expected pure speculation, but the speculation is somewhat diluted with semi-encyclopedic content about transhumanism. Tigraan (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Online advertising. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 02:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online marketing platform[edit]

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

Google search for the term shows nothing. No reference in the page either. Doesn't look like a real term or the term never gained enough notability. HireSpeal2015 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with Online advertising- it's worth a 2-line mention in there. On it's own there is no notability, but it seems like an obscire term in online advertising, so add it there. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Online advertising - search reveals this is a commonly used term but I don't see how it needs its own article - WP:NOTDICT . —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Online advertising not a notable term on it's own. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:39, 21 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan Shiromani[edit]

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

Non-notable award. Nothing shows up on Google. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to minor award; can't find any good references on it whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found mentions of it in The Hindu and an online news source, but nothing substantial that would meet WP:GNG.- Mr X 15:25, 21 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Monroe[edit]

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

A non-notable porn actress. Fails WP:PORNBIO, as multiple nominations are no longer a satisfactory criteria. Fails the WP:GNG, as significant coverage in reliable sources are non-existent. Routine mentions in AVN's own newsletters about AVN nominations and similar press releases are insufficient. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO without award wins. Fails WP:GNG without sufficient coverage by independent reliable sources. Even if you count the porn trade press as reliable, coverage consists of reworked press releases, interviews and event announcements. I found one AVN article covering the subject with any depth, but that's not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PORNBIO -- fdewaele, 21 May 2015, 20:41
Delete - fail —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - fails WP:PORNBIO. –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Can't think why I didn't nominate it for deletion myself when I cleaded it up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:PORNBIO. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2015 (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. SilverSurfingSerpant is a blocked sockpuppet and as such his view is discounted. As the article has had 7 days to be improved the argument that it should be given time to improve has little weight. Therefore the delete arguments showing the article fails the two applicable notability guidelines have the consensus here. Davewild (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Simanton[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – Notable actor. Listed with multiple acting credits in IMDb. Meets notability for actors, per WP:NACTOR. (LOL. I created this article all of two minutes ago, literally. So, it is still a work in progress. This editor has quite the itchy finger, to nominate it for deletion within two minutes of its creation. LOL.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I appreciate that the article is new and would normally vote to keep, this is highly concerning. As that article indicates, he had only minor roles, and the charge (and admission of guilt) would be the whole bio and possibly violate WP:UNDUE. You would have to have significant additional content to balance it out. Even though he died in February, WP:BLP applies after recent deaths (WP:BDP). —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. He is either notable or he is not. What does that "concerning" report (about his arrest) have to do with anything? Are you saying that if that "concerning" report did not exist, that would influence whether he is notable or not? Also, the question of whether or not he is notable is a different question than the question of what content should be in his article. When I read your comment above, to me, it says: "I would normally vote to keep this guy with an article, but because he had a criminal charge against him, I will vote to delete". Did I misread? That's the same exact thing as saying: "This guy is notable. But as soon as he was arrested, he became non-notable." Huh? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Give it time to expand. That's what Wikipedia's for after all. Rusted AutoParts 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the actor is, in fact, notable. Also, you can give the article time to expand. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why has wikipedia become a place where people believe that work on an article can correct a subject's notability? I'm not seeing any criteria at WP:NACTOR that Jon Simanton fulfills. WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles, all of these listed on Imdb seem to be minor roles. Fails WP:GNG also. ― Padenton|✉ 13:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anyone believes that "work on an article can correct a subject's notability". I think that the underlying idea is that the person is notable, but that the article still needs work. And no one has yet gotten to that work. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are misinterpreting WP:NACTOR. WP:NACTOR does not "require" multiple significant roles, as you claim. You are cherry-picking sections from the policy. The policy states, quote: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using {{BLP sources}} for example) ..." (emphasis added). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, by all means, explain how he passes notability under WP:NOTABILITY. WP:NOTABILITY requires that he either meets WP:GNG or meets one of the subject-specific notability guidelines. Unless there is something else Jon Simanton is known for, the only subject-specific notability guideline that applies is WP:NACTOR, where he does not meet any of the criteria. I see no evidence that WP:GNG is met, given that a google search returns: 1) a local news item that is clearly referring to a different Jon Simanton; 2) a mention on a horror blog (which provides no coverage); 3) an article on his arrest in TMZ (tabloid journalism, not a reliable source, nor significant coverage.); 4) another brief mention at a scifi/horror imdb wannabe. So, can you explain to us exactly which criteria Jon Simanton meets? ― Padenton|✉ 17:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made a statement that was false and I corrected you, so that whoever reads this discussion will be aware of that. You stated, quote: "WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles ... ". That is an entirely false statement so, for the record here, I corrected you. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To meet the requirement of notability, the subject of an article must meet WP:GNG or one of the subject-specific notability guidelines, while not being excluded by WP:WWIN. I see nothing showing that WP:GNG has been met, and you are now refusing to provide any. Unless you plan on arguing that criterions 2 or 3 are met, then yes, WP:NACTOR requires that the actor "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." You claimed above that he meets WP:NACTOR, yet I see nothing to support that claim. ― Padenton|✉ 14:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable actor; fails WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 13:41, 28 May 2015 (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. per WP:SNOW ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset (video game)[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable game I dream of horses (T) @ 12:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable to me: innovative game from highly-regarded dev house with coverage across a wide range of media.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable per sources. Has received significant coverage in Forbes, Digital Spy and CNET. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, the sources listed above look good to me. Forbes.com is a tricky one, though, and the blog posts are frequently written by non-journalists. You need to be careful when you cite it and make sure that the author has journalistic credentials. There seems to be enough coverage already to satisfy the GNG. Plus, it's already starting to get professional review, such as The Washington Post: [23]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources - Not entirely sure on Forbes but DigitalSpy & CNET establish notability. –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Forbes article is authored by a Forbes contributor, with the disclaimer on the page, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". Forbes is up there in terms of being reliable, and when selecting the "full bio" link about the author on the page, the credentials are impressive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2015 (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. Of those arguing based on the notability guidelines, there is a consensus that the article fails the notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Maly[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. He has appeared on the series Pawn Stars as an infrequently appearing expert in 12 of the 386 episodes that have aired. Other than mentions of his role in the series, there is very little out there about the individual, certainly not enough to establish notability. AussieLegend (✉) 12:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the deletion of Brett Maly's page. I have worked hard on this article and it is my first.

I have chosen Brett because of his local and regional notoriety (Las Vegas, NV USA) as well as his global exposure on the Pawn Stars TV series from the History channel.

I completely respect you concern and I have read the guidelines and I believe he certainly does qualify for inclusion.

Some of his recent work, which I follow, include the appraisal of a recently discovered Leonardo da Vinci sculpture that is being made into a documentary staring Brett as narrator and art expert.

Please consider these assessments in your decision or kindly ask from me any proof you would need to help strengthen my case and keep this important and developing article in Wikipedia. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradernet (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on available sources, Maly doesn't seem to have any notability outside of his infrequent appearances on Pawn Stars. I did have to remove some content from the article because it was copied almost word for word from IMDB (which is not considered to be a reliable source), and because of this constituted a copyright violation. I cannot find any evidence of the documentary that you mention, and it was not mentioned in the article. His involvement in the appraisal was mentioned in one source, but that's all it is, a mention. Items of art are appraised every day, that's not a sign of notability. Who was the person who appraised the Mona Lisa for example? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may never know who appraised The Mona Lisa because their page may have been removed from Wikipedia. Joking, of course, but more to the point is the documentary that has a trailer already produced and can be viewed at http://thelostleonardo.com. I have not updated this information because of the status of this page. I am new to this even if I have made minor edits over the past 8 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradernet (talk • contribs) 07:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows nothing on this documentary, which isn't even mentioned at IMDB. It doesn't establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary is brand new and has just finished pre-production. Also, the content you removed from this page was my own. I wrote it. It was also posted on IMDB (not by me) without my permission; which I would have gladly gave. They "borrowed" my writing, not the other way around.

Please, just give this article a chance. It's not contrived nor serving some furtive motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradernet (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Made a notable appearance on a notable show SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters are not generally considered notable. WP:ENT specifically requires that the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This person has had only 12 recurring appearances in Pawn Stars and one appearance in another program. This does not make his appearances notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources suggest a local presence only, not significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brett is quite notable on Pawn Stars and other sources and has appeared on many more episodes that listed on IMDB.(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the episodes listed on IMDB, what episodes has he been in? A recurring character is not generally considered notable. What other sources does he appear in that satisfy WP:GNG? --AussieLegend (✉) 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Art apraiser who appeared on a show without generating widespread secondary coverage. The existence of this article is an example of presentism in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has had over 40 appearances on Pawn Stars not 12 as stated on IMDB. I have the episode list if anyone cares.User:tradernet

It doesn't matter how many appearances he has made, notability is not determined by screentime, although I'm yet to see evidence of these additional appearances. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I searched for sources and was able to find primarily passing mentions in Las Vegas media, though there were passing mentions in other media as well.
Examples:
1. This article from the U.K. edition of The Huffington Post:
  They include American Brett Maly, who has been used by Las Vegas billionaire Steve Wynn to value masterpieces from Picasso, da Vinci and Salvador Dali.
  Brett last month sent Andy a report saying the drawing was worth $2.1million - but has also told him it could fetch 10 times that.
2. This article^WebCite from Good Morning America:
  "I was told by Brett Maly that this is the earliest example of pop art and Warhol did it in when he was 11 years old," Fields said.
  Brett Maly is an art appraiser for Las Vegas-based fine art dealer, Art Encounter. Fields showed Maly the drawing shortly after he bought it at a Las Vegas garage sale in 2010. Maly valued the drawing at $2.4 million, according to Fields.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Brett Maly to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2015 (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. There is a clear consensus for keep but not for a rename. Though I am for a rename, the article will have to be re written a bit for that so the title does not differ from the content. I suggest someone start a rename proposal at the talk page perhaps. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 02:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mosul (2015)[edit]

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

The page clearly violates the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy of wikipedia, trying to promote an alleged battle to "liberate Mosul", which may or may not take place in the future GreyShark (dibra) 11:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - if there are sufficient, reliable sources about this offensive, I don't see why it should be deleted, as long as there is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. Many planned events have articles. And Military intervention against ISIL is incredibly long, so I support the fork. However, the battle infobox should be removed (as it contains the projected info such as military leaders) and perhaps the article should be rename to indicate it is planned, such "2015 planned offensive in Mosul" or whatever. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - No battle has occurred, and many analysts are saying that any offensive by the Iraqi Government on Mosul may be delayed until 2016 due to recent defeats in Anbar Province. It need to be rewritten to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL. Gazkthul (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it it - Because I highly doubt that anyone would be willing to rename it back to Liberation of Mosul. This article is about a planned offensive, like the D-Day invasion, only it hasn't happened yet. Reliable sources point to the fact that the battle is planned to begin in August or September 2015, and since the current article title bears the correct year for the starting point of the offensive, it should not be renamed at the moment. Also, due the huge significance and importance of this event, and the preparations and pre-offensive events leading up to it, the article should be neither merged nor deleted, as it is too important not to have its own article, just like how Liberation of Paris and Fall of Berlin were all events that were significant enough to have their own distinguished articles. Since the Liberation of Mosul will be a turning point in the War on ISIL, at least in Iraq, the article should be kept as it is. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (and probably rename). Seems to me that a large part of the current content has nothing directly to do with a planned "Battle of Mosul" offensive - we have a long day to day list of incidents but many of them, such as the air strikes, have nothing to distinguish them from similar incidents elsewhere in Iraq or Syria and have no supporting sources that state they were directly connected to (i.e., directly supporting) a planned campaign by Iraq to retake Mosul from IS forces. It is almost a case of OR or Synthesis to group them all together in this way. Yet at the same time they are all connected in that they are all military actions that took place in the Mosul area against IS. So I think either a rename is needed (perhaps to something like "Military interventions against IS in Mosul"), or a drastic pruning of the existing content is needed to remove anything that is not directly connected by sources to a planned offensive to capture Mosul. And the battle infobox has to go - if it is a future campaign details like belligerents and strength of forces are speculation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is. I don't see any problems with it, it seems fine as it is. Славянский патриот (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LightandDark2000 and name change is probably going to change its actual meaning. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. I don't see much of a problem with the "Liberation" title (take Liberation of Paris, for example), but since it hasn't actually happened yet, it would be too much of a stretch to go on to rename the article at this time. LightandDark2000 (talk)

Keep but rename - The crystalballing has been ongoing for a while, especially in regards to the title. It used to be called 'liberation' but was changed to the more appropriate 'battle'. This supposed battle is not going to take place any time soon and efforts to predict a future event should not be allowed. There are however enough sources to warrant a rewrite of the article to make it more encyclopaedic. Mbcap (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2015 (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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aligarh Muslim University Students' Union[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Created by an SPA, the only source in the article is primary, and that generally goes for most hits in Google as well; others are either routine, unreliable, or are passing mentions at best. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the tabloid sources provided do not provide verifiability for the subject. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete no significant coverage -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2015 (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 possibility of a redirect was mentioned, but consensus favors deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Law Society, Aligarh Muslim University[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability, despite a huge amount of refspam. Created by an SPA, all sources in the article are primary, unreliable, routine, republished promotional/PR stuff, or barely even mention the society itself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of significant coverage. possibly SPEEDY under advert requiring complete rewrite to make it not spam. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing any extensive coverage. Neutrality^talk 01:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per solely WP:PROMO. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned above, this is almost a candidate for speedy, and is simply part of a veritable fiefdom of articles surrounding a university whose students have a history of spamming the site with non-notable articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible redirect to the University, so not eligible for deletion on grounds of notability (WP:R). Has a notable alumnus, a member of the Indian Parliament. I see references in other books in GBooks to the "Aligarh Law Society Review" and "Aligarh Law Society Journal". Worth a mention at least. James500 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did initially try redirecting this (and everything else along these lines), but was reverted by the SPAs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not the correct solution to that kind of dispute. James500 (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other destination other than AfD at that point, you do realize that? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is the ordinary dispute resolution system. There is WP:3O, Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and WP:RFC. The last one should be immune to control by SPAs as "requests for comment" are centrally listed and normally well attended. Not to mention that WP:SK was recently amended to prevent a "speedy keep" closure in cases where nominators at AfD argue for redirection without deletion (though whether consensus was assessed correctly there is disputed, and it doesn't mean the nomination can't be rejected in other ways). If you want a page to be redirected, it doesn't make any sense to argue for deletion. In any event that approach is prohibited by ATD, BEFORE, PRESERVE and R. The bottom line is that WP:R says that lack of notability isn't a valid grounds for deleting a page that is a plausible redirect, lack of notability being the whole point of redirecting sub-topics. The single criteria that we have for that is to the effect of "redirect is positively harmful". James500 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3O would do very little. Proposed mergers is only valid if I was proposing a merger, and since you're so up on the bureaucracy, you should know full well that most proposed mergers don't even get a single reply, and those that do rarely actually go anywhere. RfC is essentially no better than proposing a merger. Stop throwing around the alphabet soup as if I'm a new editor who doesn't know what they're doing. I initially redirected the page, yes, but there's no guarantee this is a necessary redirect. And even if it is, then there's also nothing wrong with deleting the existing spam and just starting a brand new redirect in its place... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to express my support for everything Luke said, above. In my view, AfD is a perfectly acceptable (and indeed preferable) avenue for discussion when an article on a not-independently-notable topic is redirected and an editor reverts the edit. Neutrality^talk 21:57, 28 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University Film Club, Aligarh Muslim University[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Created by an SPA, ridiculously promotional in content, and all the sources in the article are primary, unreliable, don't work, or don't actually provide any real coverage of the club in question - that's what the Times of India "source" falls into, because there's actually nothing in it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete part of a continual spam campaign by COI SPA editors. probably qualifies for SPEEDY under ADVERT -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - agree wholly with above. Neutrality^talk 01:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, again, from the same editor WP:PROMO. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the citations are passing mentions in tabloids for a film festival associated with this club, not the club itself. There is no proof of notability, and the advertising/spamming issue mentioned above is also highly suspect. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G11 by Chrislk02 (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka City - Tourist Guide[edit]

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

Contested PROD. It reads like an essay/blog. There is already an article catering to tourism in Bangladesh - Tourism in Bangladesh. Needs a complete rewrite if it is meant to be Tourism in Dhaka. Lakun.patra (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete - WP:NOTGUIDE —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Maybe some of the text could be merged into the main Dhaka article. Neiltonks (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any of it going into Dhaka as that article is already solid, and in fact was a featured article. This article I think is pure promotion, as it includes phone numbers for a tourism company. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As User:Wikimandia says.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Lemmen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTEBIO and in particular, WP:PERP, which states that there is "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage." This person is unremarkable other than the crimes he committed.Legitimus (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:PERP Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PERP; suggest branching List of impostors#Military impostors to its own article because of extensive, ongoing coverage of these people globally —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PERP. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silla Nodigal[edit]

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

Film with no notability or refs to be found. Wgolf (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete. This short film released to YouTube last month does not meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promo stub for non-notable film. Quis separabit? 00:46, 29 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Doughty-Hume[edit]

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

Notability. This is a sportsperson who has competed in some events sufficient to gain minor mention in the specialist press. However I'm far from convinced that these events, or 39th placing, conveys encyclopaedic notability Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NEQUESTRIAN, which lists various achievements sufficient for notability. Media coverage is routine, and routine sports coverage ("X is competing", "X placed 39th") doesn't count for notability. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2015 (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. Already been speedy deleted by James086 as a copyright violation. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piyush sagar[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish her notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable by a long shot and there's no actual significance to this article, it teases so promotionally I'm almost tempted to tag it as G11. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 21 May 2015 (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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMP321[edit]

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

This is a company's lead compound, which may create issues of notability, reliability, or neutrality. It also may be promotional and there may be a conflict of interest. See the discussion page. Roches (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily mean that the article has all these issues, but I want to see what others think about it. In particular, I am not saying that there is a CoI here, or that the article is promotional. I'm trying to see what should be done for lead compounds in general.

I'm not aware of a guideline or a precedent, but this is a special category of molecule, and I think there should be a guideline for lead compounds in the pharmaceutical industry. Here are some possible issues that would apply to any such article:

Notability: The criteria for notability for small molecules seems to be very low; almost anything with a CAS number can get an article with a sentence or two about the compound. But what about large molecules? Is every gene, every protein, every peptide, every antibody, notable?
Reliability of sources, neutrality: A small pharmaceutical company hinges on its lead compound. These may remain in development for decades. If FDA approval is obtained, the company's value increases enormously. Until that happens, the company's survival depends on its ability to convince investors that the drug is marketable. This can lead to issues with sources, even scientific papers, and the article may not be NPOV.
Promotional, CoI issues: For the same reasons, the Wikipedia article for a lead compound is especially susceptible to a promotional tone or to authorship with a conflict of interest. Authors with a CoI would include shareholders and employees of the company.

There are a lot of companies with a lot of lead compounds. Many of the people who have even heard of a company would have a CoI. And, because the companies need to attract investors who are confident the lead compound is marketable, the presence of a Wikipedia article may create an unfair real-world competitive advantage for companies who have articles for their lead compounds. The biggest issue I have personally is that nearly every lead compound is described as if it is extremely effective and entirely safe. I've been reading about them for long enough that I fail to understand why disease still exists when so many promising drugs have been in the pipeline.

I think it would best to include lead compounds only in the company's article, rather than having separate articles about the lead compound. This company's article, for example, does discuss the lead compound. When the compound is discussed in context, as a company's product, it can be described in the way that Wikipedia requires. When it's discussed as a molecule, I think, there are risks.

Once again, I'm not necessarily asserting these things about this particular lead compound. This should be viewed as a request to merge the information with the parent company article, not to obliterate the information. If it's more appropriate to discuss this in some other way please let me know. Roches (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that, so long as everything is properly referenced, there's no reason why lead compounds can't have articles of their own. Most readers may be interested in the compounds and not the companies, largely because they are accessing the article to lean about new drugs rather than companies in which to invest. To avoid the issues Roches has noted, I suggest that it be Wikipedia policy that such articles require mention that they are a lead compound in the first line OzBioMan (talk) 8:40, 30 April 2015 (AEST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as long as it is properly sourced I also don't see a problem. Of course it needs to be written with WP:NPOV - an issue would be if the article only includes positive information and conveniently skips coverage that is potential negative. I do agree with you that there should be a guideline for this information, and for pharmaceuticals as a whole. It would be helpful if Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology established a notability guideline like other groups have done (for example, academic, athletes etc). We could really use that in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadol. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:20, 21 May 2015 (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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harts Stores[edit]

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

This store chain does not appear to be notable in its own right. I was able to find a number of sources confirming that the Big Bear Stores chain purchased the Harts organization, but no sources that addressed Harts Stores or any similar enterprise in its own right. That leads me to conclude that the store chain is not notable, and any verifiable claims should be merged into Big Bear Stores. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found only one article, mentioning that the store had opened a new store. Not significant coverage. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a reference going into great detail about Harts stores and added it to page. Moonchïld9 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Moonchïld9: excellent work finding that ref! That said, I am inclined to think that that source still doesn't help establish notability -- that article is really about Big Bear Stores, and Harts Stores is only discussed insofar as Big Bear acquired them. I think that if that's the most substantial coverage we can find in reliable sources then the business is still not especially notable. Happy to be convinced otherwise, though. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Big Bear Stores. A separate article is not necessary as there is limited material and that could be covered within the parent company article. Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn)(non-admin closure) ƬheStrike Σagle 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ʿĀd[edit]

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

Sources may prove no evidence of notability as 2 of the three sources lead to 404 errors. Possible hoax? The Snowager-is awake 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of two related AfDs about ʿĀd (this article) vs. ‘Ad, being Afd'd by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ʿĀd (this one, classified with AfD category Indiscernable) vs. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad (classified with AfD category for Biographies). --do ncr am 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are different topics entirely. One is about the tribe/people of ʿĀd. The second is about a person, a descendent of Noah. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to copy my findings here where they are more relevant: "I'd had a look to see about deleting, but found "Ubar was the pride of a prideful king—Shaddad, son of King Ad, grandson of Noah" in this, which is given in one of the articles. I'm not sure they're hoaxes. The transcript also states "There were other clues in the library's climate-controlled vaults, tantalizing hints in the Koran, references in the Arabian Nights and Greek and Roman histories, and the works of Islamic geographers. In some books, Ubar was mentioned, but had a different name. Or the Ubarites were called "the People of Ad." But nothing gave Ubar's exact location, or proved it was real." These are likely not hoaxes in our sense, but either not notable or things believed to have existed in some theologies". My conclusion: no hoax, but not encyclopedia notable either. Delete. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to ‘Ad. Unnecessary to have entries on both in view of amount of information available. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But ‘Ad is also up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad), too. Compare: ʿĀd (this article) vs. ‘Ad: different articles. Compare Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ʿĀd (this one, classified with AfD category Indiscernable) vs. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad (classified with AfD category for Biographies): the AfDs are different. Of course if they really are one people then articles should be merged. But if one is about a people in Saudi Arabia during one time period, and other is about people somewhere else at some other time, then probably not, though hatnote disambiguation is needed. --do ncr am 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I copy in my !vote from ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/‘Ad. "If nothing else, Wikipedia should provide comprehensive coverage of peoples! Up with people! If there is doubt whether such a people existed, then say that in the article. It is useful for Wikipedia to cover peoples that are merely hypothesized to have existed by anthropologists, which turn out later to be viewed as within some already-named larger people. This happens for animals, too: e.g. Cape lions of South Africa were considered to be a distinct group, and later argued to be nothing special. Of course if this is a hoax within Wikipedia, then it should be deleted (and recorded somewhere in a list of hoaxes). --do ncr am 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--do ncr am 18:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - what the what? Snowager are you smoking crack? The fact the article is available in 17 languages, including an Arabic version that dates to 2009, should be your first clue this is not a hoax. Or is the best hoax of all time - when a troll invented an entire people, and didn't try to hide the hoax page but linked to it all over Wikipedia, and nobody noticed! Further, the Arabic term is RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE. A quick search shows a gazillion articles, including many, many photos of archeological digs, skeletons and anthropology charts like you'd imagine would be part of research of an ancient civilization. And finally, if any of you happen to speak English, this and this come up on the FIRST page of Google when doing a basic search. Worst. AfD. ever. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS It seems the hoaxers also made documentaries! Well played. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll withdraw the nomination as the other AFD was closed as keep, but the other page should instead be merged to Ād, not to mention I don't smoke crack. The Snowager-is awake 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, with all sincerity, what do you smoke then? And can I get some? I'm guessing by the other page you're talking about ‘Ad, who is (according to religious text) a descendent of Noah. Why why why would this be merged to a non-existent page called Ād, which is apparently, (wikt:Ād) a term for planet earth in an endangered language in Poland? And should A.D. also be merged while we're at it?? —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did you mean to write that ‘Ad should be merged to ʿĀd? ʿĀd is an ancient civilization. ‘Ad was a single person who figures in religious text. If this is what you're proposing, why would they be merged? And should we also consider merging everything to .ad? I think this option should be considered. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have meant that, but like I said, I'll choose to withdraw my nomination as they should be two separate articles. Thanks. The Snowager-is awake 02:04, 22 May 2015 (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 author's notability has been established. SouthernNights (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mandel[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. It has been created by an WP:SPA (Special:Contributions/ReidWilliam) who has included many citations, without any effort to format them properly. The citations merely demonstrate that the writer has been published in multiple media; they are not about him as a subject. – Fayenatic London 08:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here, as may be evident, to the comments and recommended deletion made by Fayenatic London 08:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC).

Would it be possible for other Wikipedia editors to review this, and the above, and add their comments and suggestions? Many thanks.

In a portion of the explanation for recommended deletion, it's noted that the article "has been created by an WP:SPA who has included many citations, without any effort to format them properly." No doubt there may be many formatting shortcomings. Is it reasonable and fair to ask if the editor could offer specifics so repairs can be made? Thank you.

In a portion of the explanation, it's mentioned that the article's "Citations merely demonstrate that the writer has been published in multiple media; they are not about him as a subject." I think this may be the core point, unless I'm mistaken.

In response, the following are citations from the current 'References' section of the article that discuss Mandel as a subject. [Fyi, the reference sources, below, "Contemporary Authors" and "Something About the Author," are the major library reference volumes for American children's book authors.]:

a) Contemporary Authors (Gale Publishing, Volume 152): http://www.galenet.com/servlet/LitIndex/hits;jsessionid=55205194A4C7DF090337077DC3DE748F?r=d&origSearch=false&o=DocTitle&n=10&l=12&c=1&secondary=false&u=LitIndex&t=KW&s=1&PN=0000120523 ;

b) Something About The Author (Gale Publishing, Volumes 87, 238): http://www.galenet.com/servlet/LitIndex/hits;jsessionid=55205194A4C7DF090337077DC3DE748F?r=d&origSearch=false&o=DocTitle&n=10&l=12&c=1&secondary=false&u=LitIndex&t=KW&s=1&PN=0000120523 ;

c) Article about Peter Mandel, The Fall River Herald News, March 16, 2013: “Children's book author Peter Mandel to share publishing tips.” http://www.heraldnews.com/newsnow/x2082713507/Childrens-book-author-Peter-Mandel-to-share-publishing-tips

As well, the following citations from 'External Links' discuss Mandel in the same vein, though to a lesser degree, as a subject:

d) List of notable alumni in Wikipedia article about New York's City and Country School[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_and_Country_School

e) Chapter on Peter Mandel in anthology, Authors in the Pantry: Recipes, Stories, and More by Sharron L . McElmeel, Deborah L. McElmeel (Libraries Unlimited, 2006), ISBN 1591583217; pages 173-176. http://books.google.com/books?id=YcpoqurBhhsC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=%22peter+Mandel%22+authors+in+the+pantry&source=bl&ots=IARzqYMTSA&sig=dW_z2HBYhXm09ogihiOYRPk-1ZQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3nxgUejoMKjk2AWnq4CQCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22peter%20Mandel%22%20authors%20in%20the%20pantry&f=false

f) Citation of article by Peter Mandel in book, Sacred Stacks: The Higher Purpose of Libraries And Librarianship by Nancy Kalikow Maxwell (American Library Association, 2006); ISBN 0838909175; p. 85. http://books.google.com/books?id=avD3XicGsh4C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=%22Peter+Mandel%22+sacred+stacks&source=bl&ots=2mbsT_xcC1&sig=0-DzTOddALJcrf1KgU4es0g_bxc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=33NgUeCkCOKa2gWbw4CYAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Peter%20Mandel%22%20sacred%20stacks&f=false

g) Interview with Peter Mandel on website for guidebook, Travel Writing 2.0: Earning Money from Your Travels in the New Media Landscape by Tim Leffel (Splinter Press, 2010); ISBN 1609101081, ISBN 978-1609101084. http://travelwriting2.com/an-interview-with-peter-mandel/

h) Interview with Peter Mandel, Kidoinfo.com website: http://kidoinfo.com/ri/local-author-peter-mandel-talks-books-botswana-burgers/

Thank you for your consideration. ReidWilliam (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)ReidWilliam (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ReidWilliam: The first two links, galenet.com, appear to be a private database providing access only to registered users. I cannot retrieve anything on those URLs. Please note that linking to search results should normally be avoided.

Please desist from claiming evidence from his entry in the Wikipedia page about his school; that list only cites his own website in support.

What you need to do is to demonstrate that the various published material about him meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability in Wikipedia:Notability (people). If he does not meet the specific criteria in WP:AUTHOR then fall back on WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC. The interviews with him (e.g. c, g and h in your list above) may be your best bet, but they strike me as mutual promotion for the author and the publisher, as opposed to truly demonstrating notability.

As for formatting help, I already left you a note on your talk page with links to WP:CHEATSHEET and WP:CITE. – Fayenatic London 16:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here to the latest comments re: recommended deletion made by Fayenatic London just above:

After I'd supplied citations from two of the major library reference sources for children's book authors here in the U.S.: 'Contemporary Authors' (Gale Publishing, Volume 152) and 'Something About The Author' (Gale Publishing, Volumes 87, 238), Fayenatic London responded as follows: "The first two links, galenet.com, appear to be a private database providing access only to registered users. I cannot retrieve anything on those URLs. Please note that linking to search results should normally be avoided." This raises, I think, some fairly broad-based issues about deletion suggestions re: American children's book authors. These two sources are, if you'll research them a bit, absolutely fundamental library references in the children's book field. Both are ubiquitous in the U.S. and highly selective in terms of included authors. Librarians and those in the reference field will be astonished if they cannot serve as Wikipedia citations for 'notability.' As editors must surely realize, like many other major library reference sources, they have to be available only to registered users and to library patrons, or face becoming quickly obsolete. Would it satisfy Fayenatic London if I emailed scanned copies of the entries on Mandel from each of the volumes? I'd be happy to do that in the hope that it would, perhaps, resolve this.

Fayenatic London adds the following, a bit later on. "The interviews with him [Mandel] (e.g. c, g and h in your list above) may be your best bet, but they strike me as mutual promotion for the author and the publisher, as opposed to truly demonstrating notability." In response, I'm sorry to say this, but I'm reaching a point of some despair, after a lot of work. "Mutual promotion for the author and publisher?" I think there may be a misunderstanding of what each represents. Let me try again. The following first citation is an article from a daily newspaper in New England, the region of the U.S. where the author lives. It's not an advertisement, or a press release, but a reported article in the most basic sense: "Article about Peter Mandel, The Fall River Herald News, March 16, 2013: “Children's book author Peter Mandel to share publishing tips.” http://www.heraldnews.com/newsnow/x2082713507/Childrens-book-author-Peter-Mandel-to-share-publishing-tips The second citation mentioned (which is completely separate from the first) is an "Interview with Peter Mandel on website for guidebook, Travel Writing 2.0: Earning Money from Your Travels in the New Media Landscape by Tim Leffel (Splinter Press, 2010); ISBN 1609101081, ISBN 978-1609101084. http://travelwriting2.com/an-interview-with-peter-mandel/ Please note: The interview is on the website, not for promotion, but because it is included in the book, itself. The third mentioned (again, a completely separate example) is an "Interview with Peter Mandel, Kidoinfo.com website: http://kidoinfo.com/ri/local-author-peter-mandel-talks-books-botswana-burgers/" Please note: There's no "publisher" involved. No promotional intent. It's simply an informational feature--an interview w. a regional children's book author and journalist for a Southern New England audience. Please let me know if there are other questions, or if I wasn't clear. Thanks. ReidWilliam (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to affirm that I have examined at all 4 sources under discussion above, and User:ReidWilliam is absolutely correct and accurate (I have the privilege of access to a major library system). This was the reason for my SPEEDY KEEP iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~SPEEDY~~ KEEP Mandel is clearly notable, clearly sufficient material is readily found to pass GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:ReidWilliam, welcome. I'm sorry you got jumped on your maiden effort editing Wikipedia. editing pages is really not that hard, it just takes a little while to get the knack. I could wish that User:Fayenatic london had spent a little time walking you through the necessary edits, instead of taking a page on a patently notable writer to AFD, but, well, it's how things work here. Please don't be discouraged. There are user-friendly links to how to edit atop your talk page. And I do hope you'll stick around, lots of pages on topics you know/care care about need attention. (I assert this with confidence, since we have so many pages in need of attention)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To E.M.Gregory: Thank you very much for the encouraging words with regard to editing pages overall, and your support regarding the Mandel page. I'm grateful. (Do you know if there is a point where, if others concur, the Articles Proposed for Deletion tag can be removed?). Thanks once again, and best wishes. ReidWilliam (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ReidWilliam: AfD discussions normally run for a week. If there is not much participation, they may be extended. When an administrator closes the discussion, s/he will remove the tag if the article is kept. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To begin the effort to improve the Wikipedia article in question, have added, under 'External Links', a new link to an article about Mandel as an author (in response to editorial suggestions re: notability): "Profile of Peter Mandel as part of the "Inside the Writer’s Studio" series about authors on the Read Local/Barrington Books (R.I.) website: http://thestudioatbb.com/readlocal/2012/10/14/inside-the-writers-studio-peter-mandel/" ReidWilliam (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the effort to improve the article in terms of notability, have added a reference (under "Works") to a Publishers Weekly book review of one of the author's titles and the corresponding link: "Jackhammer Sam (Peter Mandel, Author; David Catrow, Illustrator)," Publishers Weekly, October 17, 2011. http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-59643-034-1 ReidWilliam (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ReidWilliam: @E.M.Gregory: I have "wikified" the external links section, and the first group of citations under "References". Please do likewise for the rest. Either refer to WP:FOOTNOTE or just copy the method that I used. It can only help your arguments to keep the page if it looks decent – which it still does not at the moment. – Fayenatic London 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To:Fayenatic london: Thank you very much for doing that. When I'm back home tomorrow, I'll get to work on that--first thing. Thanks, again. ReidWilliam (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have begun work on 'wikifying' References section using editor's example and WP:FOOTNOTE. Am trying to do this as carefully as I can--though am still puzzling out some aspects. For one, I can't seem to discover how to remove an extra line space and a [2] at the top of the References section. If anyone can help with that, I'd be grateful. Many thanks.ReidWilliam (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ReidWilliam: I did it in stages to try and make it easy for you to follow. I've just finished number 2 for you. Read the notes I left in the edit summaries (page history) too. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic london: I really appreciate that. Thank you. (I'll keep plugging away on it, until I get it right.) ReidWilliam (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am continuing work on 'wikifying' References section, using editor's examples and WP:FOOTNOTE. (My apologies for the blunders I'm still making.) Have somehow caused multiple footnote numbers: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] to appear once again at the top of References section, and can't seem to delete them. Will keep trying. Also, though I didn't intend this, the article titles are appearing in an italic font. ReidWilliam (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic london and E.M.Gregory: Have continued to work on 'wikifying' References section. (Hope it's looking slightly cleaner.) I apologize that I still haven't figured out how to delete the multiple footnote numbers: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], that have popped up at the top of References section. ReidWilliam (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic london and E.M.Gregory I'm continuing to work on 'wikifying' the Mandel page, and am (finally) repairing the footnotes and numbering. (I think I've finally figured that aspect out.) Bear with me, please. ReidWilliam (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finishing that, ReidWilliam. Well, the page is now readable, and I have rearranged the content more like a standard biography. It probably still contains too many details and quotations about the children's books. Most of the links are just book reviews and examples of Mandel's press articles, proving only that he is a journalist, rather than a notable one; and he has only won one minor award, for a travel article. I am therefore still not convinced that the article demonstrates notability by Wikipedia's standards. Most of the web links that are claimed to be articles about Peter Mandel, e.g. (e) above, are primarily about local events at which he would be appearing. The "Chapter on Peter Mandel in anthology, Authors in the Pantry" ((c) above) is self-contributed and not significant. Despite the first appearance of a sea of citations, I therefore dispute E.M.Gregory's claim that Mandel meets the general notability guideline. By falling back on GNG, E.M.Gregory, were you accepting that the subject does not meet any of WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC? – Fayenatic London 14:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was generous of User:Fayenatic london to clean up the formatting. The text still has a long way to go before it approaches the proper tone, content for an encyclopedia entry. There is less than I thought at first look (above) And the article is stuffed with articles by Mandel (also Amazon.com and Goodreads) that should not be on the page. However, journalism prizes and finalist position in major competitions are significant things. As is having a picture book listed on sundry "picks" lists in the trade press. So I do think that Mandel squeaks past WP:AUTHOR, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Notability hinges on the reviews in the trade press (aimed at librarians and booksellers), the journalism prize, publications of multiple children's book, that are reviewed in selective trade publications: Kirkus and Publishers Weekly, some with stars. On this Chicago Tribune review of Jackhammer Sam [24]. and on this article/interview in a general circulation publication [25], the Fall River The Herald News.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory and Fayenatic london: Thanks to you both for the editing and formatting help re: the Mandel page, and for your latest round of comments. With regard to notability, I've gone back and done a bit more research. Since it sounds like book reviews in major periodicals, significant awards, and work being anthologized are key, I've found some other relevant citations that I hadn't been aware of. These include several more of the author's books being reviewed in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus and The Horn Book; three journalism awards; and an anthology and edited collection that include the author's work. Am working on double-checking the citations. Please, if you would, give me a few hours on this. Many thanks. ReidWilliam (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory and Fayenatic london: More to come, but as noted above, I've done some further research. With regard to the notability question, I've added citations for several more reviews of Mandel's books in major journals (Publishers Weekly, Kirkus). Have put these under 'External Links' so as not to disrupt the formatting. As well, I've added citations, under 'Other Works,' for two edited anthologies that include the author's work. One is an older collection of animal related essays in the "Chicken Soup" series, the other a recent anthology of travel journalism. There's another anthology, and two other journalistic awards that have popped up as well; am currently at work on verifying them. Thanks for your patience. ReidWilliam (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 21:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory and Fayenatic london: With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I've added citations for two more Lowell Thomas awards from The Society of American Travel Writers. Articles of Mandel's for The Washington Post won bronze Lowell Thomas awards in 2003 and 2006. (Not that you perhaps care, but these are, at least given the evidence I've encountered, the premier national awards for American travel journalism.) Thanks for your patience, and best wishes. ReidWilliam (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~KEEP~~ (iVote above) I regularly participate in author and journalist AFDs. The awards for travel writing and reviews of Mandel's children's books in significant media combine to pass the standards now being applied to authors and journalists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote; only one allowed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but TNT - agree with E.M.Gregory; meets GNG but this is a blow up, start over. Dizzying amount of references; choose the top and make it concise. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 21 May 2015 (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. Looks like there is a weak consensus here that the coverage is sufficient to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every Picture Tells A Story (event)[edit]

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

Non-notable music festival with multiple searches providing nothing so I even tried a browser search which gave me nothing aside from a Sydney Morning Herald article where a user commented about the festival. Frankly, the article is not very comprehensible hence the clean tag with the listed sources below significant and it seems the festival is now defunct with no website. I could search further such as Australian newspapers but I think it's evident this festival is not notable and never received much attention. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. the article is based on one source, the rest of it is unverified. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG: more sources have now been supplied. Festival was extant for about 10 years and was influential on Melbourne's rave scene and Australian techno artists. More work is needed on wikifying the content but the event is notable enough to be included. May need to be moved, for naming reasons to Every Picture Tells a Story (event)shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I spot checked some sources and found that they were passing mentions. If this is to be kept someone must point out multiple sources which have this event as the subject of media coverage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now per Shaidar cuebiyar. Nice work - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is well referenced with reliable sources. and this series of parties/events was an important part of Melbourne's early dance music history. Kathodonnell (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathodonnell, David Gerard, and Shaidar cuebiyar: Can you point to 2-3 best sources? Just by spot checking I see no sources meeting WP:RS. What do you see? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At 30 seconds' glance: InTheMix, TimeOut, Youth Studies Australia (academic), ABC all clearly pass. Haven't checked importance of the others - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion all the sources I added are RS. Its true that some only give passing mention(s) of the events but others give detailed description of them, including those specifically named by David. Bluerasberry, if you're seeing no RS at all then I doubt we can convince you otherwise.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above replies. if you need a list: ref 4 & 5 are academic books/journal articles by Graham St John who specialises in EDM, 11 is a govt. funded journal & 13 is the national tv broadcaster. 3 looks OK too. 1 & 6 ITM - they specialise in dance music, so I'd count the articles as RS (not forum posts). 7 is a well known street press publication. these parties were mostly held in the 1990s. so you're not going to find too many current newspaper/google searches, but they've been spoken about in academic studies and archives. Kathodonnell (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+ I think their record label mentioned in the article is worth saving the article too - as it released songs by well known and respected artists as listed. (not all listed have WP pages though I can see a few names at least who would qualify) the compilations was reflective of the sounds in Melbourne dance community at the time. Kathodonnell (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, I've always thought notability is RW importance, with the GNG only a very primitive attempt to guess at that, and any comment I have in this field would be made without any knowledge of what is important in the RW; I don't like to do that in any subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the article following recent edits passes WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2015 (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 Sandeep Marwah. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marwah Films & Video Studios[edit]

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

Unfortunately, this article is so troubled it'd probably be better to delete and start new or redirect to Sandeep Marwah, the founder, whose article also needs improvement. Recent news links find nothing significant or notable while archived results also find nothing notable and finally Books finds mostly listings. Note that this article and the results above are all plagued by press releases one way or another including the founder's Wikipedia article. Both highbeam and thefreelibrary found the same results (with press releases sprinkled around) but nothing significant or notable. The article says alot but it actually isn't because some of this can't be verified. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the founder. There are more sources about the founder than about the company. If we removed all the unsourced or badly sourced info here, there wouldn't be any article left anyway. Fails miserably. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to founder Almost all the sources are about the founder, not the company. On its own, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, but these sources could be added to the founder's page instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sandeep Marwah: WP:GNG requires coverage on the actual subject itself, not anyone affiliated with the subject. No direct WP:GNG coverage. Esquivalience ^t 23:44, 28 May 2015 (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. Huon (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waywords and Meansigns[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; only one clear WP:RS (the Guardian), which has only a paragraph about it. Involvement of Mike Watt, etc. not confirmed by a reliable source. Created by a WP:SPA; prod was disputed.. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article clearly has a number of notable musicians involved. Additional sources added since entry was originally flagged for deletion. Finnegans Wake is known for it's obscurity in the mainstream but dedicated cult following. Both Guardian article and http://theconversation.com/the-amateurs-age-of-unriddling-finnegans-wake-on-stage-38498 speak to the massive history of 'amateur' contributions to Finnegans Wake scholarship.The references given -- Punk News, Jambands.com, Grateful Web, James Joyce Centre -- are all websites that speak to considerable subculture audiences. There are numerous musicians involved in the project who are considered notable by Wikipedia: Mike Watt, David Kahne, Hayden Chisholm, Simon Underwood, Mary Lorson. Psychoanalymass (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know that grad students everywhere are excited about Finngan's Wake. This may become notable, but the notability isn't here yet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: 6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. For composers and performers outside mass media traditions: 5. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. Of the musicians involved, they are each notable because of their involvement in particular subculture genres (punk, avant jazz, jambands, James Joyce/Irish lit). Each has been noted for their involvement in this project by sources that are notable within those subcultures (Grateful Web, Punk News, etc) Psychoanalymass (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Only a handful of mentions, even though one said it was debuting a week ago. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete project has clearly been noted in numerous sources, in many different fields -- literature, joyce studies, music, etc -- As referenced above, according to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability amongst musical acts: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria...an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This project contains way more than 2 notable musicians!! and there is ample evidence supporting this (the article has numerous citations...) Psychoanalymass (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously as the person who created this Wiki page I have a vested interest in its success, so at the risk of repeating myself one to many times, I will again summarize why I believe Waywords and Meansigns to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. In the month or so that this page has existed, I have added numerous new sources to support and develop the page. These additions occurred after the page was initially suggested for deletion, and now this article has more sources cited than many other newly created Wikipedia articles (articles which are, for better or for worse, not contested). While is true that these sources only include a handful of mainstream sources, when combined to the number of subculture-specific sources -- doubly significant given that this project is notable chiefly because of its subculture prominence -- the cumulative plethora of sources do reliably confirm that this is in fact (1) a real musical project and (2) there numerous notable persons involved. The Wikipedia guidelines state that a musical ensemble is notable if contains two or more notable musicians; Waywords and Meansigns clearly meets this criteria. Psychoanalymass (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Mills, Billy (2015-04-28). "Finnegans Wake – the book the web was invented for". theguardian.com. Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
  The article notes:
  
  Another Wake project that has been made possible by digital technology is taking shape over at Waywords and Meansigns. The musicians involved in this project are putting together a collaborative musical version of the whole book with samples from the final work on the site already. The complete setting will be available, free, on 4 May, to mark the 76th anniversary of the book’s first publication.
2. Heflin, James (2015-05-27). "Here Comes Everybody: Setting James Joyce's 'Finnegans Wake' to music". Valley Advocate. Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
3. Lederman, Diane (2015-05-15). "Hampshire graduate hopes to lure readers to 'Finnegans Wake' through music". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Waywords and Meansigns to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked through the sources pretty carefully, they're mostly blogs, small, local-interest publications, and there's even a tweet and a facebook post thrown in there. The only source that might give this article a solid claim to notability is the guardian article, and the subject of this article is mentioned only in passing (3 sentences on it) in that source. Not enough to establish notability, which means delete imo. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability. But the Valley Advocate and The Republican articles provide the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I included the tweet and facebook post not because that constitutes "significant coverage" but because the tweet is by Mike Watt and the Facebook post by Tim Carbone of Railroad Earth. They are making statements that they are involved in the project; therefore direct confirmation these these notable persons are involved. The Guardian, the Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts), and the Valley Advocate are the sources constituting "significant coverage". (Also in the notability guidelines, a subject may be notable if it has received considerable press in alternative sources... Grateful Web, Jambands.com, OpenCulture, and PunkNews are all important news sources in their respective alternative niches.) Psychoanalymass (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the coverage needed to establish notability. Looking at the two references which Cunard calls out as providing significant coverage, the Valley Advocate is, according to our own article, a free, regional, alternative weekly, with a circulation of 53k. That doesn't sound like ~~a reliable source~~ significant coverage to me. The article from The Republican is on masslive.com, which describes itself as, Western Massachusetts’ most popular local news and information site. I have nothing against local media to provide supporting information, but not as the ~~primary~~ main source to establish notability. I'd be much more impressed if it got coverage in The Boston Globe, for example. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith and Fyddlestix can I ask, what about the guidelines for musical groups notability, wherein the guidelines state that a project is notable if it includes two or more independently notable musicians? Doesn't Waywords and Meansigns qualify as notable on the basis of containing Mike Watt, David Kahne, Simon Underwood, Mary Lorson, Brian Hall, Hayden Chisholm, Barry Smolin and Neil Campbell, as well as Tim Carbone of Railroad Earth, Gareth Flowers of International Contemporary Ensemble, Hinson Calabrese of Tom Fun Orchestra, plus Kio Griffith, Krzysztof Bartnicki, Robert Amos, and Erik Bindervoet? That's a way more than 2 notable people. Psychoanalymass (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also Waywords and Meansigns has received coverage from the Sandusky Register and KPFK--according to Wikipedia's entry on the Register, it has won numerous Associated Press awards, including the AP General Excellence Award award (four times: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). KPFK is a major station in the greater Los Angeles area, and one of the five Pacifica Radio stations. Which is to say, both seem like notable and reliable sources. Psychoanalymass (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to get excited about The Sandusky Register, with a paid circulation of 20k. That, plus the article cited is a reprint of an interview in somebody's blog (I interviewed them for one of my personal blogs and reproduce the interview here: ). That's not the stuff notability is made of. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith what about my previous comment, regarding the involvement of notable musicians, and Wikipedia's guidelines for music projects being notable if they contain 2 or more independently notable persons? Psychoanalymass (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC is a guideline, which says ... may be notable'. I figure if they're notable, there will be articles about them in mainstream press. I don't see any of that, so in my opinion, this doesn't make it. I generally don't like to get into long drawn-out debates on these things. I put my opinion out there, and people are free to agree or not. So, I think we'll have to leave it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you directly responded to my comment, I'm responding to you. The Valley Advocate has editorial oversight according to http://www.valleyadvocate.com/contact/, which satisfies Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. That it has a circulation of 53,000 indicates that it's read by many people (though not as many as a major newspaper like The Boston Globe).
That The Republican is a local Western Massachusetts newspaper does not make it a "primary source". As a newspaper unaffiliated with the subject, it is still a secondary, independent source that satisfies the requirements at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Furthermore, The Republican article says contributors are based not just in the Western Massachusetts area but worldwide:

Contributors come from all over the world including Hayden Chisholm a saxophonist from New Zealand, Wiel Conen, a composer from Holland Dutch composer, Alan Ó Raghallaigh, an Irish composer, musician and Joyce scholar.
Cunard (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word primary was a poor choice of words on my part. When I wrote, the primary source, I meant, the main, or most significant source. I did not mean it in the sense used by Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. I have corrected my comment above. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No evidence of it charting or receiving awards (WP:NALBUM), which is a huge red flag for an album when the publishing artist/producer (Derek Pyle) doesn't have an article (e.g., the basis behind most albums and songs otherwise deleted under WP:CSD#A9). As far as the WP:GNG is concerned, the non-independent sources are scant and news hits aren't numerous. The recency of release combined with the promotional tone doesn't help, either, and pushes the sources that exist more into the realm of press-release coverage—not lasting critical reception or impact. --slakr^\ talk / 00:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article notes, "Waywords and Meansigns debuted on May 4, 2015", so it is unsurprising that it hasn't received any awards. Since you're giving significant weight to Wikipedia:Notability (music) (which WP:NALBUM is a subsection of), I'll direct you to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles #6, which says that "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" is presumed to be notable. This presumption of notability is supported by the sources provided above.
"[L]asting critical reception or impact" is not required by the notability guidelines; see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary:

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
Cunard (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia (talk · contribs), what are your thoughts about two sources published after you participated here (the Valley Advocate and The Republican articles)? Cunard (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adorned in Ash[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability criteria as set out in WP:BAND; no verifiable sources could be foundKnyzna1 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 0 results in news search. Elgatodegato (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. To quote the article, "AiA have also had multiple air plays..." A band that can only claim "multiple air plays" is likely inherently non-notable. --Non-Dropframe _talk 08:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the comment for "AiA have also had multiple air plays...":The genre of the band is Heavy Metal. No commercial stations frequent this style of music which is why it has only been played on stations which specialize in metal or which have late night metal shows. These shows and stations are also oriented to playing as many different artists as to showcase them, not playing songs to death like commercial stations do. Having been played numerous times on various stations internationally is thus very notable. The additional fact that the band continues to be played by stations surely qualifies as 'rotation' too, but being metal-specific this will probably be discounted for not being mainstream.

The band also qualifies in more than one of the criteria as set out in WP:BAND:

1. Adorned in Ash has been interviewed as part of an international tour (Mozambique), a national tour of South Africa (Among Ashes tour 2014) and as participating band in Witchfest 2015 (International tour for thirteen non-South African bands in South Africa) which in its own garnered massive amounts of publicity and sparked a public debate, thus relating to point four of the Criteria for Musicians and Bands multiple times: "4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.".

2. Adorned in Ash have also featured non-trivially in multiple independent and reliable publications internationally. This can be referenced on the Adorned in Ash page and complies with point one of the Criteria for Musicians and Bands: "1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."

3. Metal musicians and bands very seldom make general news articles, but Adorned in Ash has been included in Newspaper articles (references 22 and 23 on the page) and as a band has managed to get a Google Knowledge Graph. This takes some doing as it is based on hits to sites including AdornedinAsh.com, Wikipedia, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, CDBaby.com, Amazon.com, etc.

4. Adorned in Ash is known throughout South Africa and other parts of the world as one of the defining styles of Christian Metal and certainly as one of the leading bands in South Africa with regard to metal and especially Christian Metal. This complies with point 7 of the Criteria for Musicians and Bands and can be verified by actually reading some of the references, such as the one under reference 7 and 8 on the Adorned in Ash page. LeonvanRensburg (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2015 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Collaborative[edit]

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

Notability template was removed and unsourced details added back, without any attempt to improve this article. I have tried to find online news sources myself, about any of this creative organization's activities, but have been unable to do so (I wouldn't call any of the current sources 'reliable', simply blogs or art/fashion websites). Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Support arguments by nominator, more notable than a lot of other stuff I end up deleting, but the references only anecdotally mention the subject of the article with the primary focus being on the artists or the art. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleaned up with a lot added. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable. I've found nothing better. Huon (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be improved upon instead of deleting. Article meets some wikipedia rubric for notability. Individual artists who have wiki pages reference this page and vice versa. Passes under WP:NONPROFIT, WP:ORGIN, WP:INHERITORG --JuneHazinek (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article improve templates added. Cleaned up references. definitely keep Mnanonymous (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just took another look, and I'm not sure what Mnanonymous means. There are no maintenance templates on the article, and if there were, that wouldn't have an impact on whether the article should be kept or deleted. The lone new reference does not suffice to establish notability and isn't cited for anything beyond the fact that it exists. Huon (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Solid offline reference to print magazine publication no more in circulation. (Title - exhibition curator discusses platform. Made lifestyles Vol 4 issue 1 Spring 2012)JuneHazinek (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Notability is possible, but none of online sources in the article establish notability. "Behind Technology" in Made Magazine sounds like a possible good source. The "Minneapolis Exhibition Episode" of Village Square is much more doubtful. Could easily be a primary source and/or unreliable. If Mnanonymous or JuneHazinek can provide scans of offline material, I would be happy to re-evaluate. At current, however, I am not seeing how the notability guidelines are met here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - ThaddeusB The feedback is appreciated and responses in action items have been made to article reference list. Your notice about "Behind Technology", article being a good source is right. But scans wouldn't be retrievable and could take a very long time to find since the magazine outlet folded. With regards to the exhibition episode as a credible reference a direct video link of the episode in question has been added which meets WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. The nature of the group and its operating model of service to different aspects of the community makes occasion mentions in outlets unrelated to direct art. Happy for the comments would be happier to have "considered for deletion tag" removed.Mnanonymous (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to "vote" twice (i.e. no need to preface your comment with "keep") - this is a discussion and the outcome won't be determined by the number of people saying "keep"... Thanks for providing that link. As I suspected, the show (really webcast) won't count toward notability because it is an interview of artists that are part of the Collaborative (i.e. a primary source). Even if I assume the magazine consists of substantial coverage, that is only one good source and not enough to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out the extra "vote" —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - The article has had much improvement I agree, but I still remain to suggest that the article needs more reliable references for all the information that's stated in the article. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I edited the article removing any secondary or unsourced references replacing with sourced references whilst keeping notability concerns in mind brought up by the original admin and others. The nature of the traveling initiative is ongoing with ties to the diasporas in the international areas. Documented sources to support info will be added by editors improving the article moving forward. This could serve as an agreement or compromise? Mnanonymous (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sources are still largely blogs; several don't mention the Visual Collaborative at all, and even those that do all too often don't support the very statements they're cited for. If this is the post-cleanup version, I see little hope that this can ever become a valid article. Huon (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some professional outlets use (blog software) to distribute their information, that doesn't make them a blog. I am unsure why this is a suprise being today in information culture many GOV or NON for Profit related sites use blog software. The outlets in question do have Editors In Chief, whom scan content before going up on their respective websites. There are ton of wiki articles currently alive that could fit in a lesser category making them AFD. Doesn't this deletion seem targeted without offering content removal suggestions? Especially since it has been online since 2011. I understand that this notability thing is an issue and would like to comprise taking in seasoned suggestions. Obviously this would be relative to the individual admin, some are open to give suggestions while others keen on deletion. Updated Visual Collaborative details to back the info written up wouldn't be available until their next exhibition according to other volunteers. Its easier to resign, but we could rename the article and redirect it or remove unsourced info until much mature media outlets back up the data for reinclusion Mnanonymous (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's hard finding sources because visual collaborative is a common term. Sources are so weak - one of the sources goes to an Internet Archive page with an error, and others are about the exhibition but don't give us enough info on the subject itself. I'll be happy to change to keep if we can get some better sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Somewhat concur. General term but may be trademarked and has exhibited in some high traffic communities. ^[1] Does this classify as a case of renaming the article or a move to a different category?JuneHazinek (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2015 (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. Per the discussion herein, relative to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (e.g. WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG), the topic presently does not qualify for an article. There are also WP:NOTPROMO concerns brought up in the discussion here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPTP[edit]

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

promotional and non notable; the refs are mere listings, and press releases DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with the above. WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page provides an historical and factual account of a Minneapolis-based corporation. The OPTP page content is similar in nature to its fellow competitors (take Gaiam, for example: Gaiam ) and it would seem that if those company pages are not marked for deletion and provide value to Wikipedia that the OPTP page should be no different. Information on the OPTP page is designed to be useful for customers and non-customers alike, as well as individuals, businesses and healthcare organizations connected to the health and well-being and/or physical therapy industries. The page includes 11 internal Wiki links for cross-reference and educational purposes, as well as 15 reference links, only three of which are taken directly from the OPTP website; all others from credible third party sources. Jcrane20 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the suggested promotional nature of the “OPTP” page: All statements included in the article appear to be factual and without bias. This content would be informative and helpful to anyone seeking unbiased information about the company and its history. The open source nature of Wikipedia provides transparency and neutrality that cannot be guaranteed from the company’s own publications, and for this reason I believe the article would be helpful to Wikipedia’s users. If this page is deemed promotional, it would seem the same would be true for any article about a corporation. Noteworthiness is of course subjective, but the company’s involvement with noteworthy individuals such as Eric Franklin and Robin McKenzie, and organizations such as the International Spine & Pain Institute and the International Academy of Orthopedic Medicine seems reason enough for the page’s existence. Joelmorehouse (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the article actually needs better sourcing such as news coverage and my comment below shows I found a little but not enough. It's not blatantly promotional but it's because the fact there are a few press releases and little news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 14:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the need for better sourcing has not been addressed and my searches here, here and here found nothing significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 14:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be able to provide recommendations as to which specific areas require stronger sources and what those stronger sources might look like in order to retain the page? Will update accordingly... Jcrane20 (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More significant, in-depth and notable coverage such as news, not press releases and primary links. SwisterTwister talk 16:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear, therefore I am withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Dreckman[edit]

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

I realize that as an MLB umpire, Dreckman passes WP:BASE/N, but the standard is GNG. While I think most of us would make an exception for an MLB player who failed GNG, I'm unconvinced that we should do the same for an umpire. However, if there is a clear consensus that the article should be kept, I will withdraw this nomination. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current MLB umpire. Not sure how you get that he doesn't pass GNG.. I did a cursory google search and it came up with several articles on him. Spanneraol (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing very many articles. Personally, I don't know that "articles" that say 'Waaah! Horrible ump! Blah! Blah! Blah!' can really be considered reliable sources. There is some other stuff, but not much. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How about this profile from the Sioux City Journal? This from the Chronicle Times, or this from KTIV? The reason BASE/N exists as is is that most of these people/objects will meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASE/N and the fact that there seem to be at least some sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per BASE/N. Here we have near infinite space and resources to educate the world, and people just want to remove perfectly legitimate information. It makes absolutely no sense. These AfDs seem more an effort just to do something for the sake of doing something without any legitimate reason or logic for them. Plus, isn't the guy who started tis AfD the same one who criticized me for starting an AfD on a no-name major league player from the 1870s who has minimal coverage for being 'point-y' and now here he is, starting an AfD of a major league figure who actually has coverage? Alex (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were being pointy. Don't deny it. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a difference between playing in the major leagues and umpiring in the major leagues. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but both are covered under BASE/N. Spanneraol (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2015 (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. Consensus is delete all of the articles, except for Ismail Morina. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Morina[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: - what about Ismail Morina? 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, him too. Not sure how I managed to miss that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (x6) - none of these players meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ismail, who passes the football-specific notability guideline because he played in the fully pro 3. Liga for SSV Jahn Regensburg. Delete the rest, who fail WP:NFOOTBALL by never having played in a fully professional league, and about whom there's no evidence of enough non-routine coverage to pass WP:BIO. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ismail - per Struway. @GiantSnowman:, you may reevaluate your !vote. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - keep, at least one player clearly notable. I'd suggest that players be nominated individually when they have such varying histories. Nfitz (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ismail, Delete all others - Ismail passes WP:NFOOTY as has played in a fully professional league. Delete all others as they Fail WP:NFOOTY as none have played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Fail GNG, NATHLETES. Quis separabit? 00:21, 28 May 2015 (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. There is a rough consensus here that the article does not meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Buffed[edit]

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

Pro wrestling tag team not very notable (just the feud with O'Haire and Palumbo during the end of WCW). I think that this feud can be resume in Lex Luger and Buff Bagwell. Sismarinho (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see a lot of article about WWE tag team created just because they existed in the 2005-2015 (ShoMiz, Air Boom, London and Kendrick, John Morrison and The Miz, The New Day, Team Hell No, Jeri-Show). Some doesn't even have an actual tag team name, and others are just occasional teams (Big Show and Kane). I don't see why this article must be deleted just because it's an old team while we have plenty of article about recent teams which are created the day the team makes its debut on TV. Jeangabin (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. An article is kept if its subject matter has significant coverage in reliable third party sources (WP:GNG). Nikki♥311 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WCW went under before they really made a mark, fails GNG. All of the teams Jeangabin listed above went on to gain some success. Most of the stuff here is covered more thoroughly in the The Magnificent Seven (professional wrestling) article, anything that isn't there can be merged to their individual articles.LM2000 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourced have been added, and GNG is satisfied through multiple references in third-party reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the team barely did enough for a section in the individe articles. Much less a seperate article. MPJ -US 17:04, 23 May 2015 (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. Overall, there is no evidence of notability as to the song itself. Excluding the links to the studio page, the youtube videos, and to Dogbrain music, (which aren't independent sources), the reliable source mentions (wordpress isn't a WP:RS) aren't non-trivial coverage (calling it "a hit" or "awesome" or whatever is nice but is largely trivial). She is notable, this song separately is not. - Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound of Love (Lydia Canaan song)[edit]

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

Song fails WP:NSONG. There are no reliable sources that discuss the song. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lots of stuff about her, but not about the song. Also the article claim "that topped the charts for months at No. 1" is not in any citation and I can't find any proof of that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiEditorial101 (talk)Hello, and thank you for your time and consideration concerning the article I created. There are, in fact, numerous sources that mention this song - here is one of various sources (I chose this one because it's online and you can verify it easily): http://www.philsbook.com/maison-rouge.html Thanks to your keen observation, I am adding this citation to the article. Concerning the article claim "that topped the charts for months at No. 1", I have for you an offline citation: Billboard TalentNet RadioBTN Top 50, December 25, 1998. I will also add this citation to the article in question. Based on the fruits of my research, I kindly and respectfully request that the article be deemed relevant and credible and that it therefore not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorial101 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@WikiEditorial101: WP:Notability means that significant coverage in reliable sources is necessary (see: WP:42). The source you cited just mentions the song, but that is not enough. There is no significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiEditorial101 (talk)@Vanjagenije: http://www.dogbrainmusic.com/clients.html This link is to another source that discusses how "The Sound of Love" and also the song's music video and how both were played on various major satellite networks (Orbit, Music Now, Middle East Broadcasting Center, Arab Radio and Television Network, LBCI, Future TV, Showtime, MTV Arabia, Murr TV, Dubai TV, and Bahrain TV), local television stations, and radio stations. It has truly been my lack of research that has been the problem. Thank you for your time and consideration. WikiEditorial101 (talk) In addition to the sources cited in the article, this link is to another source that discusses the song "The Sound of Love" : http://www.philsbook.com/maison-rouge.html I've added this citation to the article. And here is another previously uncited source: http://www.dogbrainmusic.com/clients.html Added this citation, too. Also, here is a source for the article claim that "The Sound of Love" "topped the charts for months at No. 1": Billboard TalentNet RadioBTN Top 50, December 25, 1998. I've also added this citation. I kindly and respectfully request that the article not be deleted.

(Response to adminhelp request) There is no administrator intervention required here. This is a discussion process among all users that lasts normally for a minimum of seven days. After that period ends an administrator will make a decision based on the discussion. I would note however (wearing my editor hat only) that the first link you posted is as far from an independent source as can be and is just a mere mention of her in a list of her own producer's clients – not substantive coverage about her in a reliable, secondary source that could be used to verify any real content; it does not help to evidence notability at all. The second is more of the same: a mere mention of her in a list as having recorded at a studio.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Will this work? Here is an idependent, third-party source: http://books.google.com.lb/books?id=Mw0EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorial101 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link is to a search all in Arabic and lands on the magazine's front cover so it's hard to tell what you intend. When I search that edition of Billboard in English, the only thing I find is a page, here, that shows a different track than "Sound of Love" by Canann in a list of new tracks. If this was actually about this song, and not about another Canaan song, it would still be a mere mention, not substantive coverage at all. Canaan is plenty notable and no one seeks to delete the article on her. The topical scope of this article is the song and so we need reliable and independent sources (like Billboard) that talk about the song, in detail (and in the text of the magazine proper, not in an ad appearing in it). This is better but is still a passing mention (actually, on second thought, I don't think it's even about the song, I think it's about the album).

The fact is that I have searched and I can't find any sources. That means we should not have an article. You've fallen into the trap (as many before you have) of not understanding first what is required for an article (reliable secondary sources treating the subject in detail), and then checking if an article is sustainable by looking for the existence of those sources. Instead, you wrote what you knew first and it's human nature to feel very strongly about not having your act of creation deleted. But you are going to have to just chalk it up to experience, knowing now what is needed and that you won't make this mistake again. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiEditorial101 (talk)@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you so much for your time, patience, kindness, knowledge, and guidance. I can now let this article die in peace *que the violins* WikiEditorial101 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that while a contributor to the discussion stated, "I can now let this article die in peace *que the violins*," they have not voted to do such. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lydia Canaan article - I'm not sure why nobody suggested this. WikiEditorial101 this content can "live on" in main article. Even though the sources are not strong enough to prove notability for their own article, they may be of use in an article on a subject that has already satisfied the GNG requirements. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Thank you for your acknowledgement that this article deserves further consideration, as I believe that this song is more than noteworthy *silencing the violins and queuing the fiddle*

@Wikimandia: Sorry, but I insist that this song's cited notoriety deems it worthy of its own article. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: In light of the new content and citations that I have just now added to the article in question, I request that this discussion end and that the deletion tag be removed.

WikiEditorial101 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided are not reliable, and don't directly mention the song, which doesn't provide notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is an innacurate and subjective generalization made by a very new user (or a sock).

WikiEditorial101 (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found yet another source validating the song's noteability, which is aparently global - Japanese journalist Fumiya Akashika of RedDeer International called the song a "smash hit": https://reddeervoice.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/lydia-canaan-passion-for-music-and-humanity/ WikiEditorial101 (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2015 (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. Huon (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bloom (Boxer)[edit]

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

Boxer who never fought for a championship that would qualify as meeting WP:NBOX. The article claims he fought a lot of fighters who became notable, but notability is not inherited. His acting career consisted of uncredited and minor roles, nothing that would meet WP:NACTOR. The coverage is routine sports reporting or the IMDB listing for every film he appeared in. There's nothing that is the significant, independent coverage from reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NBOX isn't very good with pre-1970s boxers, so I don't think it not being met matters much (I know some editors equate not meeting a guideline as a presumption of not being notable). In Bloom's era there were few regional titles and 1 world title for 8 weight class each (8 total). Now there are 4 world titles (or more) for 17 weight classes (68 total). Hard to hold to the same standard. With that, I googled him to try to find if GNG was met. I quickly found a number of good/great sources such as [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. Considering the time when he fought (i.e., harder to find sources for someone who fought 80-100 years ago), finding this many sources with relative ease is a good sign. Looks like he meets WP:GNG and therefore keep. RonSigPi (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are just passing mentions of fight results and announcements. One talks about him meeting most fighters of his generation, but notability is not inherited. The "Morse Dry Dock Dial" by the Morse Dry Dock & Repair Company also doesn't seem like a reliable source. His record of 96 wins in 202 fights shows he was a journeyman fighter with nothing that indicates notability as a boxer.Mdtemp (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Average, but apparently durable, boxer. Definitely doesn't meet NBOX. The sources I found in my search appear to be routine sports reporting and I don't think he meets GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given his record, there's no evidence he was ever close to meeting WP:NBOX. Passing mentions or fight results and announcements are insufficient to meet WP:GNG and notability is not inherited from meeting fighters who were once, or would become, notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He fought MORE championship boxers than most champions, and definitely more than most contenders. A record of thirty years in Hollywood is more notable than 20 years in five minute cameos for boxing actors like Dempsey. It is more noteworthy to have a long career fighting top talent than many champions or contenders who fade from fighting top talent in five years. He fought Benny Leonard NINE Times. Each was a huge headliner bout usually in Madison Square Garden. Leonard was exceptionally dominant holding the lightweight championship for over ten years. He was nearly undefeated as champion. Bloom was far from a journeyman boxer. AND he had roles in most of the movies he appeared in. In the 30's credits were given to fewer actors in movies because of the lower production budget, and fast production turn around time. He boxed in Madison Square Garden over five times each to large audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2015

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes. It doesn't matter who he fought, or how many times, because notability is not inherited (please see WP:NOTINHERITED). The bottom line is that Bloom didn't fight for championships and was never considered among the world's best so WP:NBOX is not met. There's no way that he meets WP:NACTOR since he had only one credited role and even the uncredited roles listed are hardly significant--"thug", "henchman", "bookie", "pug", "extra", "man in shelter", etc. As previously stated, the coverage does not rise to the level of meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reasonable minds can differ, but I do not agree with the characterization that notability being inherited is relevant here. I don't think the point is "Benny Leonard is notable, therefore people he fought such as Bloom are notable." To give this a modern example, lets say someone fought, after the fighters were well-established, in non-title fights Terence Crawford, Adrien Broner, Raymundo Beltrán, Yuriorkis Gamboa, and Román Martínez (all recent lightweight or junior lightweight top ten fighters). A fighter such as this is likely because fights involving these fighters generate significant coverage, not because they inherited notability. Even in loses, this example fighter would receive a lot of coverage through these fights. Therefore, its not an example of inherited notability, but extensive coverage through fighting major opponents. As opposed to team sports, boxing articles cover only two athletes so individual coverage occurs. Returning to Bloom, his fights against major fighters of his day resulted in coverage of Bloom, even if its because Bloom was the opponent of the star fighter. I think many of the examples I provided show this (e.g., the five paragraph Pittsburgh Press article dedicated to him). Therefore, I don't think we are in an inherited notability situation, but instead significant coverage produced from fighting major opponents. RonSigPi (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, we can see this quite differently. I see an old time fighter with no title fights who won less than half of his fights. I don't see a modern fighter being considered notable under the same conditions. I also see the Pittsburgh Press article differently. It states the organizers couldn't find an opponent worthy of a title shot so they got Bloom for a non-title bout. To show he was a worthy opponent they contacted some New York writers to boost the local opinion of Bloom--that's more PR than anything else. The fight result bears that out--Bloom barely survived the first round (knocked down for a 9 count) and was knocked out in the second round. Even if you consider that significant coverage, and I don't, I don't see the multiple articles required to meet WP:GNG. I also believe inherited notability was implied by Dcw2003 when he claimed Bloom was notable because he fought Leonard nine times. Papaursa (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Emanuel Augustus is a good example of this in modern time. Augustus is a modern fighter with no title fights who won less than half his fights. He meets the regional title aspect of WP:NBOX, but as I said above this was not available to Bloom. Outside of his regional titles, I think it is clear Augustus is notable. He fought and lost to Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Mayweather has stated that was his toughest opponent. He failed to win against former/future title holders John John Molina, Vernon Paris, David Diaz, and Leavander Johnson and had notable losing fights against Micky Ward. I would not say Augustus inherited notability of the fighters he faced, but instead is notable in his own right. Similarly, due to the competition Bloom faced and the coverage from those fights I think Bloom is notable in his own right. Again, reasonable minds can differ, but this is how I see it. RonSigPi (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I've already stated, I don't see Bloom meeting any notability criteria. I don't believe he's notable as a boxer or actor and I don't see the significant coverage required to meet GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Several reliable secondary sources, fought in multiple championship boxing matches, etc. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What championship matches did he fight in? None are shown at Boxrec.Astudent0 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found no sources that say Bloom fought for any title and SilverSurfingSerpant can't respond since he's been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Papaursa (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck their opinion as they are a blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NBOX. Quis separabit? 11:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain this further? I don't know of anything that says if a guidelines is not met, then the result is delete. All the guideline deals with a presumption and not meeting that guideline does not mean delete - it only means a presumption of notability is not made. Many articles don't meet a relevant guideline, WP:NBOX included, and yet are keep. Therefore, I think more is needed than simply saying delete per WP:NBOX.RonSigPi (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the GNG or the notability criteria for boxers or actors.Astudent0 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He fought Benny Leonard twice while Leonard held the Lightweight championship of the World. If a title fight was not granted, it may be because Leonard didn't want to grant one. If Bloom had won by knockout, a title would probably been granted anyway. That no one ever defeated Leonard during his reign in twelve years should be considered here. He was in a number of very widely distributed movies including ITs a MAD MAD MAD MAD world, which won several awards and in which he had a speaking role, as he did in a large number of his movies. Boxers very, very rarely had significant billing in movies in the 30s and 40s including ex-champions. Anyway, someone could check if he was rated in the top ten in Ring Magazine, and there is a good chance he was at one time. I'm not saying Bloom was notable because he fought Leonard eight times. I'm simply saying its somewhat notable because Leonard was possibly the greatest Lightweight in history, or in the top 2, and NO ONE ELSE faced him eight times. Unlike Leonard, he stayed in the public eye in movies for thirty years. More importantly someone could check in Ring Magazine.

Bloom was never ranked by Ring Magazine according to the annual rankings listed at Boxrec. The discussion about acting isn't whether or not he appeared in movies, but if he was a notable actor. I see nothing to show he meets WP:NACTOR, so please show me what makes him a notable actor. Finally, getting beat repeatedly by Leonard makes it look more like Leonard saw a way to get earn money fighting someone he knew he could beat. Even the fight promoters and New York writers mentioned in the Pittsburgh Press article said Bloom wasn't worthy of a title shot. Papaursa (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to have had a title shot, or be worthy of a title shot, to pass notability. I think this line of discussion gets away from the true question - is WP:GNG passed? I would think that any fight of a champion would be a notable fight, even if the title was not on the line. If Floyd Mayweather fought at 155 lbs. without a title on the line the fight would be notable. In turn, coverage would be generated about the fight and both fighters - leading the opponent to meet GNG. I do think that it was a mischaracterization of the facts that Bloom ever fought for a title, but he did fights a reigning champion multiple times. Fights by a champion, even if not title fights, produce significant coverage for both fighters. Even if the fighter is not competitive or not championship caliber coverage would be produced. The question is not "was Phil Bloom good", but "is Phil Bloom notable?" I think the refs I found above show this for Bloom and therefore GNG is met. RonSigPi (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is--I see at least 4 editors that have said Bloom doesn't meet GNG. We obviously disagree about what significant independent coverage means. Most people think it excludes fight announcements and results, but you don't. You're entitled to your opinion but don't say others haven't mentioned GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is two fold - to address the claim of Bloom having championship fights (he had none) and to address that he did fight a reigning champion. There were only 8 champions back then and fights with those champions would produce coverage even if the opponent wants very good or worthy (points made by the comments to which I responded). I never said others haven't mentioned GNG, I was pointing out that his overall talent and/or title worthiness isn't very relevant to GNG in my opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I have tried to be fair in my characterizations. However, I don't think the characterizations of the coverage as simply fight announcements and results is accurate. Further, you are right that at least 4 editors don't think there is sufficient coverage. However, at least 3 do. This inst a vote (see WP:DISCUSSAFD), but its inaccurate to point out the deletes without mentioning the keeps that suggest this is at least debatable while at the same time trivializing the coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're the only keep vote that specifically mentioned the GNG. Dcw2003 focused on things like the number of times he fought Leonard, how many times he fought in MSG, and kept claiming Bloom was notable for his acting. SilverSurfingSerpant claimed Bloom was the subject of multiple articles but he's a sockpuppet who also erroneously claimed Bloom fought multiple times for titles. RonSigPi, I must say that although I strongly disagree with you, I do like the way you keep things civil. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Appears in significant detail in a numerous sources. Passes GNG by a far margin. A Jewish American boxer who is considered to be a leading contender and was additionally an actor. Also remember there was only one title at the time he fought. Not the alphabet soup of the WBO, WBA, IBF, WBC and more. Actors of this era have had the opportunity to appear in many movies. Unlike during his era. Take a look at this

[32] and [33] you will see how he passes GNG. 71.183.12.120 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Russell (football)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that he played for the Irish U-21 team, and that he would play in a fully-pro league in the future. WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth football as a source notability, and the fact that speculation as to future appearances does not confer notability is a long standing consensus. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that.....he would play in a fully-pro league in the future." - actually that part of the contesting was on the grounds that he will (possibly) play in the National League next season.......which isn't a fully pro league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - of course if the article should be kept, it needs to be moved to the correct title of James Russell (footballer), as he is not a football..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to reach a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above as there is no indication of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2015 (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) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Archer Elementary School[edit]

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

Elementary school without clear notability, redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools should be restored as is normally done. Jacona (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. School is of historic and demographic interest. Originally a school for African-American students during the period of segregation in Virginia, its location in close proximity to the Flint Hill Elementary School is likely a reflection of that history. The school also reflects the changing population of that part of Vienna, now with a majority white student body. The school is named after its first and long-time principal, who has been recognized by the Library of Virginia's "Virginia Women in History" program. The article does need work, but the topic seems to me to merit an article. It is hardly less notable than Van Pelt Elementary School, and notable in different ways than Poplar Tree Elementary School, just to mention two other public elementary schools in Virginia for which there are uncontested articles on WP. A broader issue is the place of elementary schools generally in Wikipedia, but that can be discussed elsewhere.--A12n (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Nzo9 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to reach a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets notability as a school with this [34] —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep for historical significance, although Nom is perfectly correct that most grade schools aren't notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Namakkal[edit]

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

This is a list of external links to schools in Namakkal which is really poorly formatted that reads like an advertisement for Namakkal. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to reach a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - only because there are corresponding articles for all other districts, per Template:Education in Tamil Nadu —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Promotional, poorly formatted, largely unreferenced, not even nearly complete and may contain original research, but there is nothing here that cannot be fixed. With many other articles on the very same topic, it is notable enough to remain in the mainspace. — Yash! ^(Y) 15:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list article can be fixed. The article does not read as an advertisement. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Hit Kill (game)[edit]

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

Not notable. Too soon. Promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 03:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy: I couldn't find any reliable sources about the game, most likely because it's too soon, per nom. However, I did find basic info from 148apps (which is listed as reliable over on WP:VG/RS) about a learn-to-play app, so while it's far from establishing notability, there's at least something. There could be more, but "one hit kill" is such a widely-used phrase that it's easy to miss something relevant to this. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 22:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no reliable sources being able to get found. It is too soon. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG, a case of WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until and unless there are reliable third-party sources. Agree that it's likely TOOSOON. ★ Bigr Tex 01:58, 28 May 2015 (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) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pyu Reader[edit]

(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)

Article about an obscure academic book written in Burmese. There is no evidence in English-languages sources that this book is notable, and as the subject of the book is a largely undeciphered extinct language (Pyu) it is quite possible that the book presents a particular point of view that is not widely accepted academically. It does not seem appropriate to me to have articles on the English Wikipedia on academic books in other languages unless they have made a significant impact in scholarship beyond that language, which does not seem to be the case with this book. BabelStone (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: (Creator). It must be kept because it's my first contribution about U Tha Myat's Book.(Just kidding) Well,keep it because

(1)Usefulness This book shows how to read and write Old Myanmarsar.

(2)Reception This book was a part of the curriculum for Myanmarsar Honours classes in Mandalay and Rangoon Universities.

(3)Important One of the evidences in proving Pyu and Myanmar are the same.

(4)Living It was proved in 2003 that Pyu and Myanmar are the same.Pyu Language is still living as Myanmarsar.

(5)The truth is Forgotten In 1962,military seizes power in Burma.Since that time,everything about Burma started to fade away.U Tha Myat was not an exception. Everything about Pyu Reader was forgotten.Today,Burmans are still believing that no one can read Pyu Inscriptions.

(6)For Myanmar People Myanmar People who don't have unicode font in their phones can't read Myanmar Wikipedia.So,eng result is required for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yin May Lwin (talk • contribs) 09:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burma=country
Myanmar=ethnic group
Burmese=Myanmarsar+Mon language+Shan language+………
Myanmarsar=language of Myanmar ethnic group

Yin May Lwin (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've modified the article to meet notability. PhyoWP *click 18:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about the move from "Pyu Reader" to "A History of Pyu Alphabet" when according to the article the title with subtitle is "Pyu Reader: A History of Pyu Alphabet". Worldcat.org and the coverpages visible in the external link versions seem to agree "A history of Pyu alphabet" is the subtitle and "Pyu Reader" the title? --146.199.151.33 (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets WP:NBOOK having been taught in two universities in Burma. I'm accepting Yin May Lwin's claim in good faith as I've no reason not to. Other reasons above, noble though they may be, aren't strictly criteria we use...but that's not important right now.

I also believe that as a scholarly work on an extinct and relatively obscure southeast Asian language its inclusion will help counter systemic bias. I'm very selective about what I use that as justification for, since it can open the door to all sorts of non-notable content so long as it's "foreign". I consider it appropriate here. I acknowledge there're few sources, although there's consistent indication it's relied on as a reference work by inclusion in academic books' bibliographies.

Incidentally, has the book won an award? The bookshop link seems to place it in the top ten selection of the "National Literary Award Winner Books" list. I don't understand Burmese so can't be sure. If it did, it's worth mentioning in the article. --146.199.151.33 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I concur with above IP, I have WP:GOODFAITH in this book being prominent. My searches turned up that it was cited in several linguistic books. Also I am taking into account that internet penetration in Myanmar is almost zilch (1 percent of the population). The usual sources we need are simply not digitized. I also have deep hatred of systemic bias. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:32, 21 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Van Peperzeel[edit]

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

Does not meet NTENNIS or Tennis Project Guidelines Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Does not meet guidelines at this time. Fazzo29 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to meet WP:TENNIS. Quis separabit? 11:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE; changed my opinion thanks to explanation/elucidation by @Fyunck(click). Quis separabit? 21:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@[email protected]: In what possible way does he meet WP:TENNIS? He has never has competed in Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup and he has never made the main draw in a Grand Slam tournaments, the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250 tournament. He never won an ATP Men's Challenger. He holds no tennis records of any kind. His highest ranking is 339. He simply is not notable at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about Professional Career Finals
Singles: 5 (1-4) ?? Quis separabit? 20:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@[email protected]: Those are in the lowest level ITF future events. They are not ATP tournaments. The events are not notable because there's 600 of them. Winning 10 of them in a row is not even notable. It must be Challenger level or above per our guidelines. The professional tennis levels for men are: ITF Futures (winner gets about $1000), ATP Challenger Circuit (essentially the minor league of tennis), ATP World Tour (which has 250, 500 and 1000 levels events)... this is the tour we all see on tv. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - solid analysis by Fyunck(click).--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2015 (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. While leaning towards keep, there is no consensus here on whether the main notability guideline is met. Davewild (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam B. Boyd (fireman)[edit]

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

Non-notable person Zackmann08 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the minimum of GNG, he has reached the highest in his career. Coverage of death and funeral in paper. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): What is the relevance of his reaching the highest in his career? Does this mean that any firefighter reaches a high rank merits a Wikipedia page? Also, any firefighter killed in the line will have an article about their funeral. I work with the fire department so don't think I am belittling his sacrifice... If anything just playing devil's advocate. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What specific part of the GNG does it fail? He was not an ordinary fireman he was the president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without that 'president of the IAFC', I'd have definitely said delete. As it is... I'm leaning towards keep, if you can find some more sources? DS (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that that office confers notability, seeing as he's the only linked officeholder in the article's list. As for GNG, I don't see significant coverage. Even the obituary in the local newspaper covers only the immediate circumstances of his demise, next to nothing about his prior life. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Needs more work. President of the IAFC may make him notable. Too early to tell.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Status as president of national association and death as a chief are two notability "hooks." The article already shows sufficient sourcing to sustain a biography. Esoteric, yes, but meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite and the significant coverage in this article^WebCite from the Knoxville News Sentinel. Cunard (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Buhr[edit]

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

Reason Le petit fromage (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP of an unnotable US associate professor. I cannot see how writing an obscure programming language makes someone notable in the absence of independent 3rd party sources, etc, etc. Le petit fromage (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he is from Canada. I don't know why you mentioned the US. Askold (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever - it's not important for the inclusion criteria. Le petit fromage (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything to support GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A little short of the bar for WP:PROF, I think, in a high-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2015 (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) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts (Sleeping at Last album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable album by non-notable band. Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The album was released on a major record label - Interscope - and as such, I can't help but think there's sources out there. There's an AllMusic Review and a Melodic.net Review for starters. Christian Music.com also discusses the album a bit, and says that the single from the album, "Say", was featured on Fuse TV's "Oven Fresh" countdown, topping the program's chart at some point. I know that's not an official chart or anything, but an album having a song being prominently featured on a nationally televised network's program is noteworthy. It says they performed the song live on IMX as well. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Sleeping at Last. The band is notable enough. There isn't much content here, only one or two sources available, and the 'Early Years' section on the band article is very brief, so much of this could be added there. The tracklisting would be probably lost by merging as we still don't seem to have come up with an agreed way of listing tracks within discographies, but merging would be better than deletion. --Michig (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, they don't have a discography article to merge to anyways. I tried to consult it for details during the album rewrite/expansion, and noticed it doesn't exist. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the band contains a discography. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant a discography article, not the section. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've rewritten and expanded the article out of stub status since its nomination, using sources with a consensus for being reliable per discussions at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think with the article improvements the subject now meets WP:NALBUMS. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering. I don't blame you for the nomination, it really did take quite a bit of research to be able to flesh out any sort of narrative about the creation process, and no one had bothered to do it in the last 5+ years, so I can see your original mindset too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sergecross73's expansion. Subject appears to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 07:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interscope is a major record lable and chose to release this album. Therefore, I'm convinced of its notability. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2015 (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 The Mousetrap. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreen lyon[edit]

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

non-notable character from The Mousetrap. In the play does not even appear on stage, appears well covered in main article. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To The Mousetrap, as a plausible search term. I agree it does not merit a full article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Barely a plausible search term since the character name is Maureen. Crow^Caw 23:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note – article has been moved to Maureen Lyon--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to The Mousetrap. Kaimahi (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and strike delete vote now that the original has been renamed, since it is a plausible search term, properly spelled. Crow^Caw 17:37, 25 May 2015 (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 Premier Farnell. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 01:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farnell Technology[edit]

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

Former brand name of Premier Farnell. No references and orphaned; does not need its own page. Liam987 talk 00:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Plausible search term, there is a consistent but low level daily traffic. Redirecting is a no-brainer. 137.43.188.139 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect appears to be the way to go. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (duh, why was this even relisted? I do not think the nominator would have objected...) Tigraan (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 15:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nirahua Hindustani[edit]

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

Contested prod-film with NOTHING on it at all Wgolf (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is notable. Article needs work sure, but not deletion. It already contains sources to meet WP:NF.[35][36][37][38] and WP:BEFORE easily found [39][40][41] and many more. WP:NRVE. So why was this brought to deletion?. WP:NOTCLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt-well I couldn't quite find anything under that title and if you see the original article when I put it up it was unreferenced with no info at all! Wgolf (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: Different search practices I suppose. I found enough to improve the stub quite a bit.

. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-I'll withdraw this. But yeah as you can see it was so bare bone at first. Wgolf (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wgolf, it was indeed bare bones but easily sourcable, and for improvable topics I like WP:HANDLE far better than AFD.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Davewild (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Fairley[edit]

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

Non notable actress Fails GNG - Considering she's been in 2 very notable films (Kidulthood and Adulthood) I'm very surprised there's nothing on her - I managed to find one source which I've added but other than that I can't find anything - Even looked on Highbeam but got nothing.[42] –Davey2010^Talk 17:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 17:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable enough to warrant inclusion here. That she is included in the International Movie Database and is well known enough that Google has given her a recognition box under her name sufficiently establishes notability. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ormr2014 - IMDb isn't a reliable source and having a "recognition box" means bugger all thus your !vote as it stands is invalid, Please provide legitimate sources that establish notability. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about sources

Davey2010 You should do some research instead of simply nominating the article for deletion. [43]. There is more than enough material readily available to anyone with even the slightest inclination to look. Even you admit that she was in "2 very notable films". Regarding your assertion about the IMDB, you cannot even have a page on there without having some level of verifiable notability. Ormr2014 | Talk

Ormr2014 - Are you completely blind as if you look above you will see I have searched on 2 sites and 30+pages, Those Google Results are all irrelevant - Don't you think if they were relevant I would've used them?!, IMDb isn't a reliable source whatsoever - IMDb is free to edit like Wikipedia so it's not a source, Again invalid vote - As I said right above Please provide legitimate sources that establish notability which so far you haven't done. –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 I'm not blind at all. And as for what you would or wouldn't do, I don't have a clue, but I do see a lot of people proposing to delete all sorts of things that really have no business being deleted and from my perspective, this is such a case. Ormr2014 | Talk

Ormr2014 - Well I'm hardly gonna lie about looking am I ... As you'll see from my edits here[44] I actually planned on sourcing it but how can one source an article if there is none? ...., If they don't meet notability requirements they have every right to be deleted, I would thank you on providing sources but you've not listed any which clearly indicates you haven't or can't find anything so thus proves my point - No evidence of notability to warrant an article. –Davey2010^Talk 02:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 How's This:

Filmography

Kidulthood (2006) as Claire
Adulthood (2008) as
Dude Wheres Gary's Finger (2010) as Gaz 'Fingertron' Hardy

Television work

Drake And Josh (2004; 1 episode) as Mandy
Casualty (2008; 1 episode) as Amber Collins
West 10 LDN (2008) (television series pilot) as Lillian
Missing (2009; 1 episode) as Kaz Gutenburg Project

TCM outlines her filmography
Listed on Theiapolis
Mentioned in the book, The Nicholas Hoult Handbook
Simply searching "Madeleine Fairley" pulls up over 5,000 results While many are certainly not worth listing, many are relevant.

There is more than enough to deem this article "notable". That her filmography includes not only two major motion pictures and a smaller film, but also spans 4 television programs establishes enough "notability" to be encyclopedic. How you cannot see this is beyond me. Ormr2014 | Talk

1st is a Wikipedia mirror, 2 and 3 aren't reliable sources, 4 doesn't work and again 5 is useless ... so again no notability, Please read WP:Reliable sources, With all respect I've been here 2-3 years so I know alot more than you ..... Give up and !vote Delete it'll save us both time. –Davey2010^Talk 03:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the the book but it looks to have mostly been copied from here and elsewhere so again not really source. –Davey2010^Talk 03:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,Davey2010, I've been editing on Wikipedia for over 5 years under 3 different accounts, so I'm going to disagree with you on the last point. And as for the first source it's obvious you didn't read it or even look at it; it's not remotely even similar to Wikipedia, much less a "mirror". You make a lot of claims about the sources, as if you've done a scholarly analysis or something. How did you determine they are "not reliable", and stop pointing to the Wikipedia guidelines, it's a cop out. Explain what makes these particular sources unreliable per Wikipedia's policies. And how exactly did you determine the book has been "mostly copied from elsewhere"; please give a reference to the original work.

I've said my piece and I'm going to leave it at that. Others can decide whether or not to include it here... Ormr2014 | Talk

~~So you've been here for 5 years yet with all respect you're absolutely clueless as to what's reliable sources and what isn't,~~ The first was copied from Wikipedia - Look at the edits before mine - Completely the same ... It was copied word for word and again how you can't see that is honestly beyond me, Well IMDB isn't per WP:Citing IMDB as it's a known fact IMDB isn't a reliable source, The rest aren't at all and anyone who's edited here for a long time would know that, The book was copied from here and elsewhere that's plainly obvious, Others won't include it because they're not reliable sources and they don't establish notability, BTW I apologize for constantly hatting it's just this is becoming very big. –Davey2010^Talk 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 Where at in Wikipedia was this filmography copied from? Certainly not the article you're proposing to delete, as this article did not even list her television appearances.

As for the rest of what you stated, when writing articles or adding citations myself, I have tried to use only scholarly, news or educational sources. This is my own personal choice and has nothing to do with any policies here. I only recently began looking over the AFD articles and I admit I didn't know about Wikipedia's policy concerning the IMDB. I work for a company that does movie and music productions and I know it's not a simple matter to get on the IMDB so I assumed this gave credibility. But regardless, I still hold my opinion that the article should remain. This woman is not some fly-by-night actress; she's been in two major motion pictures, one minor film, several television shows and I've seen many other people who've done much less in Wikipedia without so much as the slightest bit of protest. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ormr2014 - I'm not ganna argue - You're entitled to your opinions and to be frank we both have better things to do than to keep bickering over this, You feel it should be kept ... I disagree ... But the world turns :)

I apologize for calling you clueless as that was rather uncalled for and pretty much pointless - There's things on this place I'm still clueless with myself so having a go at you wasn't helpful so I've struck it out, Anyway thanks & happy editing :) –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 You didn't need to apologize, but I do appreciate it. I'm Irish in every bit of the stereotypical way; I'm arrogant, hard-headed, extremely opinionated and I often get irritated when my opinions/thoughts are questioned. I try to keep that mindset out of my editing here, but believe me when I say there have been more than a couple of times when I let my emotions get the best of me and I said things that were best left unsaid!

In any event, you're absolutely right about this article; it isn't worth dragging on any more. You take care. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ormr2014 - Well I do because I was a bit of a dick, Haha you me both - It's very easy to let your emotions get in the way here hell like yourself I've said things that I shouldn't of said, it's all too too easy,

Thanks and you take care too, Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one and only reference isn't primarily about her, just a mention in a cast list. Doesn't appear to have the substiantial coverage from reliable sources needed for a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a single article about her. Ormr2014 FYI IMDB is not an indication of notability - *I* have a profile on IMDB!! All you have to do is be credited in a movie for anything, even as crew or "thanks to" etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Kidulthood Govindaharihari (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes reading these responses, you just have to laugh. Quick question: does everyone here enjoy being redundant and repeating everything everyone else said? I know the IMDB is not considered a reliable source. I didn't when I wrote my above remark, but I have since come across Wikipedia's position on the IMDB. If that wasn't enough to convince me, Davey2010 more than adequately made the point, making the following statement by Wikimandia about the IMDB redundant and unnecessary.

In any event, I have tried to find sources that are reliable under Wikipedia's standards and have failed miserably. Thus my initial vote to keep has been withdrawn and I now affirm the article should go. Ormr2014 | Talk 12:30, 21 May 2015 (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 as G12 by User:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Leo Johnston[edit]

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

Okay so this has a in construction template I know-but it was put up by someone other then the creator-anyway it seems to be a huge unsourced auto bio Wgolf (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 21 May 2015 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Kakar[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not advertising. The article reads like the subject's resume and I suspect there may be some COI editing going on. Pishcal — ♣ 18:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Hey. I am not a COI. I am a student at [IIM Ahmedabad], the best business school in India. He is a well-known alumni from my institute. Hence, I had written the article.

I understood your concerns. The article has been edited to include only the facts. The notability of the living person is sufficient. Reasons according to me are as follows.

- He is featured in Forbes Middle East List since last few years including 2015.
- Has been CEO, Citibank for TMEA (Turkey, Middle East and Africa) Region
- He is featured Alumni in IIM Ahmedabad , a premier b-school in India.
- He was featured in Top Guns which speaks about Indian Successes in Business and Corporate world.

Let me know your thoughts. - User talk:Abhijitborkar 11:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the sources do not convince me, in particular I wonder whether "Forbes Midde East" is an WP:RS, but being CEO of Citibank as is claimed above would surely grant some notability. The article could be trimmed down a bit, though.

@Abhijitborkar: Welcome to Wikipedia. You do have a WP:COI ("Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships" and you said he is an alumni from your school), but it does not mean your contributions should be automatically rejected; we welcome editors that are familiar with subjects the average Wikipedian (a 20-something male Westerner) does not know. However, you should maybe spend some time reading the policies about sourcing. For instance, I do not believe topgunsworld.com stands up to WP:RS. Tigraan (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - :@Tigraan: Thanks for the insights. The intent was purely to contribute to wikipedia. I had created an article on a very well-known professor from our institute as well. This article was again with similar intent. I will definitely consider your suggestions in further articles.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12/12/12 (film)[edit]

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

Article about a horror film which does not have enough reliable coverage to meet the inclusion threshold of WP:GNG searches for this film primarily capture a concert/film for Hurricane Sandy Relief and found no reliable sources to support any interest in or coverage for this film. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Delete per nom. Yes, it does garner minor mentions on a few horror film blogs and fan sites, but nothing that satisfies WP:NFILM, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

> The authored non-blog reviews found: 28 Days Later Analysis, Dread Central, Talent Monthly, Ralphus, Cinefessions, Deadworld, Film Critics United, Matchflick Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While yes, there are many unreliable sources sharing reviews, 28 Days Later Analysis is generally acceptable for indie horror genre films, as is Dread Central, and even Talent Monthly. While not the wide coverage as a big studio blockbuster, we have something just sneaking up on WP:NF. And we can probably have an article soon on Jared Cohn. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed? I have a dislike of the genre and I tend to only consider mainstream news outlets or journals at WP:RS. In your experience this horror fanzine type sites are considered reliable and notable for this genre? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly many of those found are unsuitable, but not all RS "have" to be big corporate drones or mainstream news outlets like New York TImes. For instance, Dread Central is not a fanzine, and has passed the test of WP:RS. While still ongoing, there are efforts to address those acceptable "less-than-mainstream-news-outlets" over at WP:FILM/R. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I change to neutral. I don't edit articles in this area of film and really don't care for it, and it seems as if there are websites I'd never heard of that may be considered reliable for this sort of thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple film reviews by secondary sources, some aren't the best, but some are good enough for me. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2015 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George de Menil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was recently deleted at AfD, then recreated, and I think it at least deserves a thorough discussion again. As I see it, the basic problem with this subject is that we have no in-depth coverage that would confirm notability, per WP:PROF or WP:BIO. We have citations to titles of his books, as well as one of his articles, which are fairly meaningless in this context. We have a capsule biography published by one of the institutions with which he is affiliated, as well as a publisher's blurb, neither of which is independent. We have his CV - no comment. And a directory entry, and something he runs. None of which amounts to very much, from a standpoint of encyclopedic notability.

Also, while not directly bearing on notability, let's point out that the article is written by the subject's daughter - can you say "conflict of interest"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete. It seems like he would deserve an article but as nom said, there are just not enough secondary sources at this time. Elgatodegato (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but cut down). I think anyone who thinks that there is a dichotomy between "independent sources" and "non-independent sources" is severely lacking in clues and quite honestly shouldn't be attempting to write an encyclopedia. We can rely on the non-independent sources for basic non-controversial concrete facts, especially in the academy where lying about one's achievements is not considered to be appropriate. Many of the "independent sources" rely themselves on the non-independent sources, and can often be less reliable - we need to consider the context. After the irrelevant stuff about Latin club is cut down we wait with a cut down version until inevitably the unfortunate happens. As regards COI, his daughter should concentrate on ensuring newspapers or academic journals have information to publish an obituary on his death (even though I hope that this is not for some time yet). Le petit fromage (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Le petit fromage, yes, there are sources which are independent, and those which are not: WP:BASIC speaks about them, as do a host of other guidelines. Sure, no source will come labeled independent or non-independent, but it's usually rather easy to tell which is which. I base my work here on this premise, as do, presumably, many other editors.
- Having said that, it would be useful if, rather than opining on various extraneous points, you could say exactly why the article should be kept, in other words how the subject passes either WP:PROF or WP:BIO, and just which independent sources demonstrate his notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh FFS, read what I wrote above. No, there are very few sources that are truly independent, and those that are non-independent are not necessarily unreliable. This is such a basic point of scholarship, that it is probably more difficult to misunderstand (as you have done) than understand. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, Le petit fromage, so you don't actually have any independent sources, as demanded by WP:BASIC and contemplated by WP:RS, about this subject. Fair enough: I just wanted to make that clear to any other participants. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He meets WP:PROF with reliable sources, ergo he should be kept. The fact that you couldn't recognise a reliable source if it bit you on the arse is irrelevant. End of discussion. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found this source, which states that he was "founding director of the economics research division of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris". I believe that that, stated in the New York Times, is sufficient to establish notability under WP:PROF criterion 6. The rest of the (non-independent) sources can be used to establish facts. However, I feel that the rest of the sources do need a bit of a trim. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 20:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To pass WP:PROF #6 he would have to be Director of the Institute itself, not one of its divisions. And only if this Institute is a major academic institution (which it may well be). Kraxler (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person seems to have done enough to be notable, but there is almost nothing in the article that is sourced to a reliable source, and I can't find anything. I even tried searching his name in French newspapers and got nothing. If someone does find reliable sources, this article will need to be entirely re-written using those sources and only those sources. LaMona (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think he may qualify as WP:PROF, which combined with his role as adviser to the presidents of Ukraine and Romania (and his subsequent publications about their economies) make him notable. I've run into this before when trying to compile info for a bio - economists are very rarely the subject of articles and with so many journals and papers it's hard to know which ones are truly important. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about economics/academia can give insight. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The subject fails WP:PROF#C1 if only papers are considered, with a h-index of 9 and 500 citations. However, the subject seems have some significant publications and contributions, as evidenced by the article, which may pass WP:PROF#C1. Esquivalience ^t 03:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs work, but I see he can pass WP:GNG at least. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2015 (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. Normally, if there's an obvious merge target, merging would make sense, per WP:ATD, but Epeefleche makes a good argument why straight-up delete is better in this case. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Socialist Review (1997)[edit]

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

Article has no sources. Such sources as I can locate are all within the circle of the tiny socialist movement that sponsors the journal. Article has been tagged for notability for over a year.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note there were previous publications named International Socialist Review, a notable one founded in 1900 and a less notable one founded in 1956. Their notability does not carry over to the modern publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete There is no presentation of notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into International Socialist Organization, where primary sources (such as its own masthead, or the sources that E.M.Gregory found) are likely to be acceptable for verification. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hrothulf. VandVictory (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, and d !vote by Tony. Non-notable. There's nothing of note to merge. There's not even anything that passes wp:v, as it is all uncited. If someone want to create RS-supported material, they can do so at the proposed target. But there is nothing to merge. Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unreferenced, completely unnotable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My recollection is that this publication was part of a single piece on three magazines all called International Socialist Review and that it was split off. International Socialist Review (1900) was the very important (and well covered in independent sources) original; the title was revisited by the Socialist Workers Party in 1956 and again by the International Socialist Organization. I think merger and redirection to International Socialist Organization is reasonable. The magazine is still going, I subscribe to it, but it is pretty doubtful that sources exist sufficient to support a free-standing piece. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carrite. We don't merge uncited/challenged text -- which is all we have here. If anyone wishes to create information at the target article, preferably with RS citations, they are free to. But there is nothing here that is appropriate to merge. Epeefleche (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the editor formerly had a wp article, but was found to be NN and the article was deleted at AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Shawki (socialist)[edit]

I can find no reliable sources. Such sources as I can find are all within this writer's interlinked socialist circle of related outfits. Author of 2 apparently non-notable books issued by Haymarket Press, which is sponsored by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change, the NGO that sponsors the International Socialist Review (1997), the journal Shawki himself edits. Journal, organization and Shawki are all affiliated with the International Socialist Organization. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note that this is not Ahmed Shawqi the Egyptian writer, and not Ahmed Chawki the Moroccan singer, although all 3 names are sometimes spelled the same way.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet GNG or our author-specific criteria. The nomination may require another step, btw -- to show the searches for his name. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no reliable sources. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Estévez[edit]

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

I don't find sufficient evidence of notability for the subject of this autobiography. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm confused by this deletion rationale. Are you aware that if you click on the "news" link above, you immediately see articles on him from Spanish daily newspapers? Based on that, how does he not meet WP:N, exactly? He's an award-winning Spanish film director who's been the subject of multiple independent news stories -- two of which I've added. There may be a COI problem here, but that's a different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC) t[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I click the News links, I see 16 links, of which 8 are about one or more other Fran Estévezes. Of the remainder, three, or at most four, have anything substantial to say about this Fran Estévez (as opposed to mentioning his name in passing while discussing one film or another). At best it's a borderline case.

As for the award, the pertinent guideline at WP:NFILM reads "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." The footnote leaves open the question of what a "major award" is, while allowing that awards at the Venice and Berlin festivals may qualify. On that basis, I don't know that the Festival Internacional de Cortometrajes de Bueu is at the requisite level. And, yes, I'm being persnickety about it because while autobiographies aren't forbidden, we do repeatedly claim to discourage them strongly, so I feel that applying the guidelines to them rather strictly is justified. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "three or four" articles devoting substantial coverage is enough to satisfy the requirement for multiple coverage for me, and I daresay, WP:GNG. As for the COI issues, no argument there. I had tagged it as such, and for cleanup issues as well, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search on News, Books etc, show enough coverage to establish general notability. Metamorfosis seems quite well known. For what it is worth, the Spanish and Galician wikis also have articles on the subject. Yes, it is a bit promotional in tone. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The other wiki articles are much older, but of course it's possible they were all created by the same COI editor -- we do know he has edited them, logged in. I obviously agree with the keep !vote based on sources. And since warned about COI guidelines, he hasn't attempted to edit or interfere with this Afd. I think it's a case of someone honestly unfamiliar with the rules, here: there's been no attempt to disguise identity with his username. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikis aren't reliable sources and count for nothing in assessing notability. I guess I understand the point if the point is that no one there has challenged them, but then we don't know what the guidelines are on those sites or how carefully those sites' articles are reviewed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I'm certainly not saying that other language wiki articles do anything to establish notability here -- in fact, my comment above was to point out that they may also have COI issues. My !vote remains based solely on WP:GNG, and I maintain that the Spanish-language news coverage is significant enough -- significant enough, in fact, for WP:SNOW. But we shall see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, I added another two refs. Kraxler (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2015 (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. Discounting the input from the COI editor, I find no consensus either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sealevel Systems[edit]

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

Non-notable company, this article is just a list of patents they have. Patents don't prove notability as per WP:CORP and WP:GNG, significant, independent coverage does- there is no evidence for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As much as I dislike the process by whuch this article came into being, the awards and the coverage of the Space Shuttle arm control electronics at least seem legit. — Brianhe (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically promotional. The appropriate response to articles like this is WP:TNT. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the paid editor who created this article. I did spend considerable time reading up on the technical stuff I could find in order to understand it and thus determine if the company's work was notable; I believe their patents and the work with the Space Shuttle arm control merited the notability. If you give me feedback on how to make the article better, I'd like to do that versus deleting it. Thank you. Djhuff (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PATENTS says "Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to the existence or contents." Awards are a much better signifier of notability. Brianhe (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are also a common form of puffery for businesses. Djhuff (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, awards are evidence that independent companies/organisations think they are achieving something, patents are often vague, written by the own person/company/organisation, and have far less worth than the companies/people say they do. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not all awards are created equal. With some independent organizations, all you have to do is fill out a form and send in your check. Many awards have far less worth than what people prescribe to them. Djhuff (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in the case of Sealevel Systems, your awards aren't actually winning anything, but getting to the Final of an Award (barely notable if at all), and being the third best business in South carolina (which is quite good, but still only a local award). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. Perhaps Wikipedia should rethink the whole "awards show a company is achieving something" idea. That's all I wanted to point out. Djhuff (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but Wikipedia also has the WP:GNG criteria, which says that you need to be notable to have an article. Sealevel Systems fails this, despite their list of patents and not very good awards. The most important thing is coverage from independent sources, for good awards they are often covered by good sources e.g. newspapers. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite how this article came to be, it appears the creator has now declared his status albeit a bit late. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water! I agree with Brianhe, with the coverage of the Space Shuttle arm control electronics in the article, and being that there are numerous WP:RS that are well referenced, the article subject passes WP:GNG and crosses the threshold of notability. WP:N Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain but maybe delete and incubate for now - The article is neat and sourced but the sources could be a little better and my searches here, here, here and here suggest they haven't received as much news coverage as they could. Now granted, they are much worse articles so at least this one has sources but it could still be a little better. SwisterTwister talk 15:13, 21 May 2015 (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. I agree this is junk and should not be on Wikipedia; on the other hand, the term can be used in a reasonable way, and redirect would be appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 dimensions[edit]

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

This kind of Article really isn't Encyclopedic, or Organized. It is not written in the correct way for a Wikipedia Article. I do not want to put blame on the Author, it was a nice first try, but not good enough. --AM (Talk to me!) 00:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, not deleting. If you look up 10 dimensions, there's lots of sources about it. See [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Therefore, passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Joseph2302, thanks for the help. I am new here, and I didn't realize that this article is one worth keeping, Thanks! --AM (Talk to me!) 00:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion it is, other people may disagree though. Generally you should look for sources about it before nominating it for deletion- it appears to be a concept in String theory with quite a few references. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this topic might be notable, the article itself needs such a complete rewrite that it would be better to throw it out and start over. APerson (talk!) 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to String theory#Number of dimensions. This article is a personal essay, written in good faith, but with no sources and frankly doesn't make much sense. Ten dimensions is primarily notable in physics for the role it plays in string theory. Ten-dimensional space already redirects to String theory#Number of dimensions; this article should as well. --Mark viking (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Um, "There are kind of 11 dimensions if you include the 0th dimension." This is irredeemable junk. If the particular significance of ten-dimensional space to string theory is already covered, then I think this can just be deleted. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought at first it was an attempt to transcribe this video that went semi-viral awhile back, but not even that. No objections to a redirect, though I don't think it's an especially likely search term. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to String theory#Number of dimensions per Mark viking. As written this is unencyclopedic, unsourced, largely unintelligible original research. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but to dimension, not to string theory. Although string theory's use of 10-dimensional space may be the most prominent application of this number of dimensions, a redirect there would be much too specific; there are plenty of other 10-dimensional things that have nothing to do with physics. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no need for a redirect here. We don't redirect "7 Trees", "12 Trees" and "37 Trees" to the article on "Trees." This is complete WP:OR, and if there weren't already "Redirect" votes present, I'd recommend for speedy. PianoDan (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - that is almost speedy-grade material. Comparing that unintelligible essay with the original source makes it clear that the meaning has been lost. There would be a case for redirection if, and only if, "10 dimensions" was a common term for something in the context of string theory which meant more than the plain meaning ("5+5 coordinates of spacetime"). Needless to say, I do not see that. The mere fact that the article tries to deal with String theory#Number of dimensions is irrelevant (if Lizards from outer space is created with the claim Barack Obama is one of them, we would not redirect the former to the latter at AfD!). Tigraan (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2015 (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 deleted per CSD A1 by EurekaLott. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 01:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cgeese[edit]

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

Nonsense page ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 23:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted - I tagged vandalism —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:07, 21 May 2015 (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.

^ Adams Morgan Exhibit

[1] Adams Morgan Exhibit

[1]