Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 August	14 August >

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Eakle[edit]

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

Article fails Notability WP:Politician - Subject has never held Statewide Office, as well as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - Press coverage is all local and trivial. WP:PROD removed without explanation. MilaPedia (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Notability - Only article cited about him, is his obituary. Otherwise other cites are just listing of his name as county executive in a report. Caffeyw (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-obituary references added FlugKerl (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The added references added no weight. None contain a line about the person. At most they are listed as being the county executive. References need to be about the subject even if it's very brief. All the added references are about other subject (ie an OMB Report) and simply list the person as a detail. Caffeyw (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nine articles regarding Howard County Executives/Commissioners/Councilmen have been recommended for deletion based on not meeting only one of the three polices in WP:Politician by User:MilaPedia with an account created 9 August 2013.

A banner was posted using the “proposed deletion/dated format, with concern = Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office”

WP:Politition states- 1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in. 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.

The banner stated - If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it

Following the specific instructions, the concern was met by meeting section 3 of WP:POLITICIAN by additionally citing each article from a book, in addition to existing citations. The notation was marked in the summary, and the AFS tag removed as instructed. The following entry was posted on MilaPedia’s talk - Thank you MilaPedia for your efforts to make sure all new articles related specifically to Howard County Elected Officials are to be deleted. The articles are works in progress, however each has been significantly cited from a variety of sources which meet criteria #3 of WP Politician (listed below). Some of the articles recommended for deletion are politicians that have also sought higher office and are also notable for their influence in their respective fields. In addition, the guidance clearly states alternatives to AFD "deletion" as a first step. I hope you will direct your future efforts toward expanding and improving these articles with accurate information and relevant citations.

Recommendations were given in Lieu of deletion. Six of the same articles were recommended for deletion again August 14, 2013 with the following notation – "Article fails Notability - WP:Politician Subject has never held Statewide Office, as well as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - Press coverage is all local and trivial. WP:PROD removed without explanation." Each article is in progress, and has been well-cited by a variety of sources, and extra care has been taken to exclude the extensive amount of voting history and procedure that may be considered trivial or not independent of the subject. Although notability is subjective, each is relevant in the history of a rural county that became one of the 10 wealthiest counties in America during their terms and provides supporting information to historical articles. Notification was provided to the user, and noted in summaries. The AFD’s recommended are very specific with similar articles in the same categories not facing the same scrutiny, such as Janet S. Owens or Calvin Ball, III. FlugKerl (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being county executive does not give notability. Search online shows only trivial hits such as being listed as office holder or running for office. Caffeyw (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (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 Languages used on the Internet. After reviewing the article, I don't see any useful content that can be merged over as proposed (since April 2013). If someone wants to go back and possibly merge something they feel can be useful, feel free to do so. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language internet[edit]

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

Violates WP:NPOV/WP:BIAS and WP:SYN. Anglophone users may be very prevalent on the internet, but it isn't inherently English. To Russians, we're foreign language internet users. References that use the phrase do so from an English-language point of view; it's meaningless on its own. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or alternatively redirect to Languages used on the Internet. There's a merge proposal to that page, but I don't think there's quite anything to merge. In any case, the article is hopelessly biased and not worth saving at all. Ansh6 6 6 01:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Languages used on the Internet. I agree with the nom - the first thought I had on seeing the article was "whose foreign language?" I don't think it would be possible to write a neutral article with this title, or with a paraphrased title, so I think redirection or deletion is the way to go. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, seems to be the most sensible option to also preserve page history for possible future educational usage. — Cirt (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone wants to save the sources and merge more coherent English into Languages used on the Internet or Website localization. This article is less than useful, since it has major glaring errors, such as confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web for starters. Another oddity is that it lower-cases those terms, just when I am in the middle of fixing hundreds of articles that use Upper Case Letters All the Time Perhaps to Make things Sound More Important? Although this one uses "web pages" the other issue in many of these is "web site" (which seems proper English) vs the Germanic-style "website" which alas seems common usage. W Nowicki (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, our article is called website, and we have a whole article on Capitalization of "Internet". --BDD (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Big Data[edit]

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

The topic appears to be of the author's own creation: nothing in google, google scholar or google books. No citations provided and there's not reason to think any can be. The article may have originated with an idiosyncratic (mis)translation of Big data, but there's not enough here to tell. Delete per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR, WP:NOTAFORUM, etc. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one clearly. Might even find a speedy case for it? On a related note, the Christian Science Monitor just mentioned the Wikipedia article on Big Data so wonder if there might be a burst of activity on related subjects. One irony I noticed is that CSM used capital letters while ours uses lower case. Another oddity is that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing alerts show that a "peer review" was requested on big data four months ago but nothing at all ever happened that I can see. W Nowicki (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~* keep~~There is a source for it here ^[1]. <anofollow" class="external free">http://www.forrester.com/home/">Forrester Research</a> will be putting out more details on MBD in the months to come. Don't miss out on this by deleting the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.25.75 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at this, this, this, this, and maybe this. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems kind of pointless and non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. not notable, lack of reliable sources. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:53, 20 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eggy Peggy[edit]

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

Non-notable recipe with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested PROD. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTHOWTO. Arjayay (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki the recipe part (not the language game part) to Wikibooks, which has a collection of recipes. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose transwiki. The recipe portion appears to be cribbed from the internet. See this blog post. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq and nom Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:08, 20 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berrys Coaches[edit]

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

non-notable company, Fails WP:GNG & ~~WP:CORP~~ -Davey2010 Talk! 18:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.Davey2010 Talk! 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.Davey2010 Talk! 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.Davey2010 Talk! 18:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions Davey2010 Talk! 19:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely it must be notable if its been around for 90-odd years? Tom the Tomato ^Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 14:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from it's website, There's nothing to say it's notable, Anyone can say they were established in 1920 & only set up in 2011? ... Davey2010Talk! 14:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Tom the Tomato ^Talk Pending namechange to Aycliffe. 10:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a NN coach operator. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2013 (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 by admin Ponyo. (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 23:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assaf Adry[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Citations indicate that Adry has released videos and has paid the admissions prices to Artists.MTV to upload his videos. No indications of any major label interest, or any awards or national tours. Airplay appears to be sporadic, but not regular rotation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:13, 13 August 2013 (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. Ged UK 16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Fidelman[edit]

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

CEO of several social media companies, and a blogger for Forbes, but no real signs of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article author has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of a permanently blocked user, making WP:CSD#G5 applicable in this case. Article has been so marked. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - article created by a sock in circumvention of a block. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ignore editor behavior and looking at the content on its own merits. In this case it does not pass WP:GNG. The Forbes link is material by the subject, not about the subject. The Huffington Post link is a hint of notability but not sufficient on its own, need more sources that discuss about the subject in depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Persson (ice hockey)[edit]

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

The player has only played 47 games in the Swedish second-tier league (HockeyAllsvenskan). Notability seems to be based on the fact that the player was the top goal-scorer in the Swedish third-tier league (Division 1) in the 2010–11 season. The player does not appear to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Hey mid (contribs) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to being the top goal scorer for his league, he also meets criteria #3 of NHOCKEY as a 5-year professional hockey player who has played more than 100 games in the professional minor leagues (50 games in Allsvenskan and 101 games in Swedish Division 1). Dolovis (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the third-tier Swedish league (Division 1) qualifies as a fully professional minor league. Hey mid (contribs) 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your basis for doubting it? (That being said, I'd expect a league scoring leader to meet the GNG.) Ravenswing 19:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Notability. One cite is not about him, but a list of awards where he happens to be listed. Other cite by itself does not create a case for notability. If he's so notable why isn't there more about him? Only things I can find on him are where he's listed because he won an award, nothing on him as a person. Caffeyw (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While Persson may not explicitly meet WP:NHOCKEY (though if the Swedish Division 1 was discovered to be professional, that would no longer be the case), I believe the combination of him having played 50 games in the professional HockeyAllsvenskan (in addition to the 100+ games he's played in Division 1), coupled with the fact that he led the Division 1 in scoring in the 2010-11 season, is enough for him to meet WP:GNG. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 17:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is about the quality of sources, not what the person has done. Reso lute 18:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leading a low-level minor league is not a call to notability. Likwise, WP:NHOCKEY presumes notability if certain criteria are met, but does not guarantee it. I can't find anything in either English or Swedish (through Google translate) that indicates this player has been the subject of non-trivial coverage. Fails GNG. Reso lute 18:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking through google at English and Swedish sources I have not been able to find anything that shows he meets WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any notability standards.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2013 (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 Move to Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year. Legoktm (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian of the year[edit]

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

I do not see any reliable 3rd party sources covering this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about this, this, this or this?

Theguyfromhere (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure daily dot is reliable
Wikimedia blog is not independent
Wikipediocracy is a blog, not particularly reliable.
is a student newspaper.

I do not see generally massive press coverage of this, and editors need to be mindful that Wikipedia is not as important as you think it is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's your point, I don't see generally massive press coverage for 90% of the stuff Wikipedia has an article about ;)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bit difficult all around, but in the end the one source is just about the one incident of the prize money not being given. I hope this is corrected, but the notability of the award itself is not established. Borock (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider that if Bill Gates named a "Microsoft Employee of the Year" that would probably not get an article since everything we need to know is already in the title, although this one is (only) slightly less obvious. Borock (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the year, because, duh.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe it would be appropriate to merge this information into the broader article about Wikimania. If not, then I agree with S Marshall's proposal to move to Wikipedia space. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to W-space per S Marshall. There's clear value to the project to keep this, but not in encyclopedic form. With the sources available now, it appears to only interest those who follow Wikipedia inside baseball. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project namespace per above. The Daily Dot looks reasonable, but if that's all there is then...nope. Ansh6 6 6 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Marshall. Although there are many articles related to Wikipedia (see Category:Wikipedia), this one does not seem to have enough reliable, independent sources. ~Hue Sat Lum 22:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think this is notable, yet. delete/move/merge/whatever. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:56, 19 August 2013 (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 Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) (United States). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam[edit]

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

This is a borderline speedy case, and the only reason I'm not calling for speedy deletion as a copy of this magazine article is because the article has been edited forward enough that I'm not utterly confident that it's close enough to the original blatant copy as to allow that route to be pursued. I still suspect it's so close that it would be necessary to start over from scratch in writing it. An equally serious problem, however, is that there's no evidence that this action was ever called "Battle of Signal Hill". Ankony (the author of the magazine article) is the only person making an association of "Signal Hill" with Dong Tri mountain, and even he doesn't formally dub the action with this title. The action in question certainly happened, and is related in a variety of other works, so there's certainly a place for it somewhere— but not under this title, and not with this text. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

further comment Talk page discussion includes a claim that Ankony himself is the author of the first version, and that he releases that version to us. That may or may not resolve our copyright issue, but the naming problem remains. I'm also concerned about how we deal with publishing what is likely primary research. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've done some cleanup work on this, and did find errors in some of the non-Ankony sources he used (one was an actual misquote of a cited source). I also adjusted much of the prose in some sections to make it less of a direct copy (which I think it was after reviewing his link to the original article). This is a common issue with this editor's work, and I've asked him on his talk page to make wider use of reliable secondary sources. Intothat darkness 17:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. I've been considering a COIN visit for a while now. This editor has used his own work as the basis for a lot of additions to Wikipedia, over several articles, almost to the point of where it appears to be an attempt to sell the book. I think there are significant COI issues that need addressed outside of this AfD. As for this article, I'm leaning towards merge and redirect with Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) (United States). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) (United States). I doubt it merits an article of its own, but it's much too long and detailed to put it all in. Ansh6 6 6 01:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. I raised a COI question on MilHist about this editor. Unlike the others, I'd suggest this article be merged with Operation Delaware, as that's the main combat operation that Signal Hill supported. Some material could go to the E/52 article, but for context it really belongs with the operation. Intothat darkness 13:59, 14 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest serving United States governor[edit]

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

Sheer trivia. There are infinite ways to parse out a database of United States governors—there's no compelling reason to have such an obscure list. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of a random article. It's just a random intersection of facts and not particularly relevant. And it's completely unsourced after six years of existence, leading to a reasonable conclusion that the entire thing is original research. And what do we do with unsourced original research? We delete it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rationale for the article seems more like something from a logic puzzle than an encyclopedia. Sorry to have to say this since I see a lot of work and thought went into it. Borock (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LISTN (not discussed in reliable sources as a set). Ansh6 6 6 01:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article certainly doesn't fail WP:NOR, as the simple macros you can run against either World Statesmen or NGA are WP:CALC, and I believe that with the attention the article has received recently, a text section shouldn't be hard to muster, nor (for WP:LISTN and WP:TRIVIA) does it seem so overly random so as to violate WP:NOTDIR, the only issue being WP:OC. As far as a rebuttal to that, the political communities has made it known that they find lists like this relevant, and at least two somewhat similar lists have been kept after a nomination [1] [2]. Star Garnet (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Figuring out for yourself who does and less not qualify for the list is not "routine calculation". We are having a disagreement right now on the talk page about the inclusion of some territorial governors. Unless we have a source that specifically discusses this specific concept it very much is original research to figure it out for ourselves based on vague or even non-existent criteria. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that it isn't a well-discussed topic (with [3], [4] and [5] being the only obvious references to the topic (and the last referencing the page in question)), and though I dispute your assertion that this isn't a routine calculation, it is 100% verifiable (excepting governors who have uncertain lifespans) and can be reformatted to any set of criteria that editors can agree on. Star Garnet (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? The article just seems to be about "Earliest serving Governors currently living", which is a rather bizarre topic for an article. Earliest serving governor, maybe; earliest serving governor currently living, definitely not. We've passed from "potentially useful information" to "listcruft", as far as I can tell. Delete. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:LISTN, WP:TRIVIA, etc. etc. etc. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial non-encyclopedic information. Superman7515 (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2004–05 UEFA Cup first round[edit]

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

Pointless content fork from 2004–05 UEFA Cup. Prodded but prod removed without reason by article creator. Number 5 7 16:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - back to parent article, no need for a fork. GiantSnowman 08:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A merger can't be done - there isn't any information in the fork that isn't in the main article (the main article actually has more details because it includes more second leg matches). Number 5 7 10:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the content in the main article needs to be reduced and details from the second leg matches need to be added. Adding all these matches to the main article would make it pretty big, and that is best dealt with by a content fork. – Pee Jay 12:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has more detail than parent article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per PeeJay. --MicroX (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - having an article about every First Round that has happened since the creation of the UEFA Cup is unneccessary, so merging and redirecting to 2004–05 UEFA Cup would be the best thing to do. If it turns out that the parent article gets too big, it would be reasonable to create a fork. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gratuitous Games[edit]

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

Article is about a video game development company without any sources. I looked for significant coverage to establish notability but did not find anything beyond minor mentions. Whpq (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN company. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:15, 20 August 2013 (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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth A. Bollen[edit]

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

no references proving person is notable SefBau : msg 15:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator). External links are sufficient references for biographies. They are reliable, and [6] states that he is "ISI he is one of the World's Most Cited Authors in the Social Sciences". This recognition seems to make him notable in the light of WP:PROF (criteria 1 and 2), through I am unable to find an independent verification (the claim is repeated on a number of pages, but most of them seem related to the subject; I could add a book cite - Yu Xie (27 October 2009). Sociological Methodology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-4443-3293-3. Retrieved 14 August 2013. - but he is the author, so it's hardly independent). He is a H.R. Immerwahr Distinguished Professor of Sociology, which should satisfy criteria 5. He also has some publications in one of sociology flagship journals, and they are mentioned in the (biiig) list at [7], I am not sure to what extent this helps (his CV puts it in a nicely self-promotional way as "Bollen (1980), Bollen (1983), & Bollen an d Phillips (1982) named as “ASR Greatest Hits” by Jerry Jacobs, editor of American Sociological Review (ASR). The list includes the most cited papers in the history of the American Sociological Review since its inception in 1936. "). To what extent we should care that he is widely cited ([8]: two of his works have over 10k citations!) - PROF is of little help, but perhaps we should revise it. Let's ping User:DGG - I'd like to hear his opinion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or remove unsourced claims, if referencing is not improved - Notability is, I believe, satisfied by his professorship at a University. However, there are assertions in the article which should be verified by inline independent reliable sources, since this is a WP:BLP. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't BLP for potentially libelous info only? Since the content of the article is referenced from his bio entries, which he probably wrote himself, I don't think there is a problem with revealing information that the subject would not want others to see... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he passes notability by being a professor, but WP:MINREF says that the statements don't have to be negative to need inline citations. It's reasonable to ask for a source more independent than the person's own profile before stating that he is "one of the World's Most Cited Authors in the Social Sciences." If these exist, why not just cite them? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. SefBau : msg 17:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at GS for heaven's sake. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Being a professor does not make a person notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article is currently 100% unsourced, the authors bio page isn't reliable due to WP:COI. For example:
- Bollen claims in his CV that in 2002 he was cited as being "one of the World's Most Cited Authors in the General Social Science". If so, there must be others who have received the same recognition since 1) the recognition is capitalized like a proper noun and 2) he says "one of" implying there are others (that year or other years). Yet a Google search shows he is the only person in the world making a claim for this award. Strange, and not notable.
- The "Paul F. Lazarsfeld Award" is not clear how notable it is: a Google search on the award with Bollen's name confirms he received it but there is zero discussion about it, no articles or comment by third (or first) parties.
- The article says he is the "Director" of the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, but the website does not list him as a director - in fact he is not listed on the staff at all.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I double checked his CV - he was a director from 2000 to 2010. I guess he (nor others) didn't bother to update his bio to the past tense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looked into his CV more closely and Bollen exceeds notability guidelines by way of the paper cited 14,000 times, multiple elected prestigious fellowships, and other things. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stunning cites on GS give clear pass of WP:Prof#1, also in other categories. Nominator is reminded of WP:Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep First, it is not actually accepted here that all professors are notable. What is accepted here is that allfull professors at major research universities are notable, and the evidence that it's accepted is that not one has been deleted in the last 5 years except if they're in a field against which we have prejudice, such as education, or they there is specific prejudice against them for having supported creationist or anti global warming or other views that are not popular here. There is furthermore a specifically stated rule in WP:PROF that all holders of a distinguished or named professorship at a major university are notable, and he holds such a chair at UNC Chapel Hill, so the only reason for doubting notability is if one isn't aware of that guideline.An official web page at a university is reasonably authoritative for the actual career of somebody,; tho it does not intrinsically prove notability , what is found there might well prove notability In 7 years here I found one and only one specific degree on one that couldn't be verified.

He doesn't claim to be merely "highly cited," in a general sense; he claims to be one of those on the ISI list of highly cited researchers, about which there is information in WP, at ISI Highly Cited, (it needs updating -- see [9]) -- and we even have a corresponding category, Category:ISI highly cited researchers He can in fact be found on the ISI list: the exact reference is here ; just put it in the article. Everyone on that list is notable , because notability as a researcher is being highly cited, and ISI is the standard for citation analysis. I'm going to make a guess: which is that nobody thought of looking for "highly cited" in WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. He passes WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited, and much better sourced as highly cited than most passing academics), likely #2 (the sociology award), #3 twice over (AAAS and ASA fellows), and #5 twice over (this is his second named chair), at least. Any one of these would be sufficient for keeping the article. Not even close to a plausible academic deletion candidate. I can only conclude that the nominator is unfamiliar with WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2013 (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, but actually Moot. article has been G5'd as the creation of a sockpuppet. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US Federal Contractor Registration[edit]

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

The Washington Post article is about someone named Laurie Campos Sandler, puts her in Rockville, Maryland which is not within a reasonable commuting distance of Orlando, Florida, and does not mention US Federal Contractor Registration, Eric Knellinger, or Dan Driscoll. The Dun and Bradstreet and BBB entries indicate this company does exist, but the revenue of $7.35M reported at D&B doesn't match the figures of $5.1M and $11.5M that have appeared in the Wikipedia article [10]. A major contributor to the article, Governmentcontractingtips (talk · contribs), was later blocked for spamming. I found the company's press releases republished at [11], [12] and [13]. Investment Underground is an unreliable source, in my opinion. Besides the company's own Web site, other sources used in the article are not about this company. I'm skeptical that there's been enough independent, reliable, in-depth coverage of this company to meet WP:NCORP or WP:V. —rybec 15:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are refs that prove the company exists, and there is one secondary source that mentions the company that really only mentions a service that they provide and nothing more. Company doesn't have the deep coverage typically necessary for notability. Speedy Deletion may also be warranted under {{db-banned}} (WP:G5) as the article creator has been found to be a sockpuppet of User:Morning277 and few other substantial edits have been made by editors in good standing. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion of NN company. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS evidence that this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gianginis[edit]

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

No significant roles, nor coverage in any independent reliable sources. Likely autobio with prod removed by the article creator & likely subject of the article. The-Pope (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because not only is this a strong conflict of interest, I still can't find proof that this isn't a hoax. Feel free to correct me if you find evidence that this actor actually exists. (To me it seems all the profiles you find with a Google search were created by the person himself.) Ginsuloft (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- editor definitely has a COI, and as Ginsuloft was saying, this may be a hoax. The only confirmed evidence I can find is of his age (not his DOB). Also, I'm not so convinced that the photo is the user's own work, as it appears as a search result at [14].Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think its a hoax, but if you look at his acting roles, all of them appear to be as an extra, featured extra, or minor character with only a few lines. No major roles, so likely doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. LionMans Account (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hi, it's user:Jasongianginis here. All data, pictures and information submitted to wikipedia are accurate, and current. The problem lies therein that the information is autobiographical, however when this page gets edited in future the concern is it will be flagged as "hoax" again. Sourcing references supporting the inclusion of this page on wikipedia will take time to prepare. Also, the personal information contained on the profile is not available to the general public, hence it's inclusion. I understand the need for neutrality, and the page is free to be edited by all. Would a submission to Articles for creation have been a better avenue? Please let me know, thanks. Jasongianginis (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2013 (AEST)
Delete References are either social media or WP:SPS. Failure of reliable independent sources. The article also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing cited at all to support any of the information provided. Websites listed as "external links" are not reliable (ie IMDB, Facebook, Youtube, etc). Also does it meet notability? Per users own comment above it seems there's no information available in public to support. Caffeyw (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references provided are not reliable to my mind, and most of the roles are bit parts or minor roles. Even if verified, I'm not convinced that this person meets our notability criteria yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The closing admin may also wish to consider whether User:Jasongianginis is in breach of WP:FAKEARTICLE. WWGB (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hertler & The Rainbow Seekers[edit]

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

Non-notable band. A couple of EPs and albums either self-released or on a local minor label. Some local coverage (what's hip in Detroit, a college radio station), but no evidence of any major accomplishments to meet the requirements of WP:BAND. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band Criteria 9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Joe Hertler & the Rainbow Seekers placed in the Guitar Center Singer Songwriter 2 Contest. This contest was nationwide, had over $50,000 or prize money, national promotion, and was judged by Grammy award winning producer John Shanks

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the Guitar Center competition would be hard-pressed to count among "major music competitions". I could be wrong; show me the significant independent media coverage (i.e. coverage published by sources not associated with either the band or the competition) that arose from this award, and I may be swayed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to me to meet WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this act; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gong show 17:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not appear to even meet the GNG, much less any more specific guideline. T C N7JM 15:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC collectively Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, salted. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qeuyl[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Author keeps recreating the article after being deleted. Page has no summary, references and sources. EuroCarGT 14:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 - absolutely no indication of meeting WP:NMUSIC whatsoever. Lots and lots of self published stuff, but zero news and book hits. Unsalvageable. Personally I prefer to close down discussions here, as it means any subsequent recreations can be simply dealt via WP:CSD#G4. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:17, 13 August 2013 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle McMahon[edit]

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

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

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

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

No significant coverage from independent media, no national record release or chart hit as either writer or singer, back up dancer only. Only claim to fame seems to be a HuffPo blog and being featured in a few Oprah episodes. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found lots of sources for another Kyle McMahon, who is a sports player (he's currently mentioned here.) But absolutely none for this singer. Perhaps an article could be made for the sportsperson. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has had 2 national / international record releases, 4 Oprah shows, airplay on MTV, a documentary on ESPN as manager for pro golfer and was a Rock The Vote artist. Not sure how that doesn't constitute significant coverage from independent media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.183.74 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, was not logged in. FeerTheDeer[reply]

keep Subject has enough credible sources listed, this article has more credible sources listed than many subjects we have which aren't marked for deletion. MTV.com has a bio page on the artist, which should be credible enough for inclusion. Subject also was guest on 4 episodes of an internationally broadcast television show. Subject is a signed recording artist with the second largest record label in the world. These are all more than sufficient for inclusion. Wikipedias citation search shows over 10,000 articles for search parameter "Kyle McMahon" (or) "K.mac" (or) "Kyle Mac" + Music. Do agree that sports figure Kyle McMahon should also be researched to see if he is currently active enough for inclusion for a page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.88.149(talk)

~~Keep~~ Has had 2 national / international record releases, 4 Oprah shows, airplay on MTV, a documentary on ESPN as manager for pro golfer and was a Rock The Vote artist. Not sure how that doesn't constitute significant coverage from independent media. FeerTheDeer FeerTheDeer (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has plenty of sources written about him including MTV, ESPN, broadcast TV, Washington Times, etc. Subject is significant enough to appear here. Subject also trended on Twitter during the last Oprah broadcast he appeared on. Page views for this article show over 100 from day it was published so obviously there is enough interest in this page and will continue to grow when subjects album comes out. We have plenty of subjects with MUCH less fame than this and not nearly as many citations and we've kept them. Original deleter was too quick on the trigger with this one. Carmellamusicfan (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)— Carmellamusicfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Lots of single-purpose accounts going on here. Plus, FeerTheDeer voted twice, as an IP and logged in. Is this is a case of socks? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor, I'm not sure if you saw, where I, FeerTheDeer, IMMEDIATELY logged in & said, "Sorry was not logged in" right next to my comment (I did that so everyone could see I was being honest in my mistake). And yes, I have notified the other 7 people who have worked on this article, with the help of the Wikipedia Live Chat Editors, so they know this is up for debate for deletion. I assume all of them will come here and log in / create an account and give their vote. You seem to have some sort of strange vendetta. Is this a case of Bias ? FeerTheDeer (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying other creators of the article is perfectly acceptable - thanks for letting us know you did that, though, as multiple new accounts or IPs commenting on a deletion discussion makes us wonder if someone is engaging in sockpuppeting. Please be aware, however, that deletion discussions are generally decided on the strength of arguments presented, not on the number of users commenting. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Subject has been on national tv four times in the last three months. Has tens of thousands of articles online. He also has a site on MTV. And finally, he's signed with Warner Brothers. Sufficient. Subject also has over 50,000 social media followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.198.158 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — 24.229.198.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
To all voters: the burden is on you to provide sources and policies for your argument. So far, none of the keep arguments have located direct sources or other work that would show he passes notability. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User Taylor Tescott, the person who marked for deletion obviously did not read the article. Nowhere does it state he's a backup dancer and it does state he's had two releases in the US and abroad. Going by your logic Taylor, we'll have to mark your article on Owens for deletion, after all, it only lists one source and your subject does not meet the minimum requirements for notability set by Wikipedia. Since you seem to think that your article with one source deserves to be on here, by someone who has ZERO Google news mentions about him, why wouldn't you vote to keep this young man on here, with thousands of results from various credible sources like MTV, Oprah.com, ESPN, multiple radio, available on iTunes and Amazon.com etc? I did take the liberty to look at the IP addresses. One is from Philadelphia, one from NJ, and one from Delaware, which, by definition means its not socking. Don't be so hypocritical voting to delete this with 43 listed sources when keeping yours with one listed source OprahPhan (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)— OprahPhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Warner Brothers is a recognized major record label. That alone meets the requirements. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources, Taylor.

1. MTV Artist Bio Page - K.Mac - This shows artist is an active MTV artist & lists him with 111/Warner Brothers Records, as well as gives a link to download a song and has a music video they're airing on their networks that is available for OnDemand streaming on their site. 2. Oprah.com - Shows one of his appearances on Oprah's Lifeclass on OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network, which is available in the US, Canada, UK, etc. 3. Music Video - Music Video has almost 200,000 views. Of those, 100,000 of them were in the first month of release. You can check this by clicking on statistics.

As I stated previously, we worked extensively with the editors in the Wikipedia Live Help room for days before we submitted this. Those editors helped us craft it into what it is, fix some of our sources, fix some of our formatting, etc. Once the editors in the Live Chat approved of what we had done, we submitted it for approval for publishing. It was reviewed and accepted by two editors. We planned on continuing to add to it and make it better as we went on. Further Taylor, I agree with OprahPhan. Your own article that you submitted lists ONE source, yet you're arguing someone with 43 sources that has been on national TV 4 times in the last few months should not be on here? Could you explain that? FeerTheDeer (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There's your answer. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor, right in the article you posted, it states, "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." So thank you for proving my point with that article you posted. Based on your believing that Owen Marks is significant enough with one source, you are clearly stating that Kyle McMahon is significant enough with 43 sources. If a film editor with a few hundred Google Citation Bot results is notable enough, surely a major label recording artist with 4 Oprah episodes under his belt and thousands of Google Citation Bot results is significant enough. The sources have been provided above, there are 43 other sources listed on the page, including MTV, ESPN, TV Guide, Golf Channel, etc. I'm not sure what else you'd be looking for. Is this a gigantic celebrity, no. Is this someone young starting out a career that's gained a big following (50,000 plus fans through his social media) in a couple of years and had a Tina Turner album credit and currently is being played on MTV, yes! FeerTheDeer (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just missed the point completely. If you truly believe Owen Marks is not notable, nominate him for deletion instead of using said article as a leverage for why this article should be kept. Provide some non-primary and reliable sources, and I will reconsider my vote. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to indicate this artist has met any of the requirements of WP:MUSIC. His contract with Warner cannot be verified from a reliable source (the two sources provided are 1) a blog; and 2) a list of his ASCAP credits which do not mention Warner at all). Even if the contract could be reliably verified, it was a development contract, meaning he never actually released a major album with Warner. His appearances on Oprah's Lifeclass do not appear to rise to the level of real notability -- any more than the guests on any other daytime talk show would be notable. As for his "MTV" status: the article states that he "joined MTV for Rock the Vote", whatever that means (perhaps he appeared at an MTV Rock the Vote event?), but this fact cannot be verified because the citation points to a page that has nothing to do with McMahon. His other MTV connections are that he has set up an artist page at MTV, which is somewhat akin to opening a YouTube account. McMahon's association with 111 Records is almost a giveaway that he hasn't made it yet: the Wikipedia article about this label states: One Eleven Records is an Orlando-based record label concentrating on young up-and-coming rock bands. All in all, McMahon appears to be a busy man, and perhaps a laudable man, but not a notable man. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61 & Taylor - on our very own 111 Records page, it clearly states that 111 Records is distributed by Warner Brothers Records. Discogs.com verifies that 111 Records is a subsidiary of Warner Music Group's Warner Brothers Records. Further verified at OVguide.com, particularly "They have a distribution deal with Warner Bros. Records". This means McMahon's album would come out through Warner Brothers Records. Rock The Vote has a free concert in each state during an election cycle to drive voter registration.

Further, notable people like Veronica De La Cruz have written about him and his work on fatherlessness in America on places like HuffPo. He is even listed a celebrity sponsor for StandUpManUp.com

The Washington Times mentions the Golf Channel Documentary noting that McMahon managed the professional golfer.

In regards to MTV, these are not user accounts, the pages with green checkmarks are artist pages curated by MTV. Further, the page notes that the video is currently airing on their channels.

In regards to the ASCAP list, did you see the writers listed as co-writers with McMahon? These are major industry leaders who regularly work with artists like Madonna, Cher, Seal, Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, etc. This can all be verified by clicking on their name on the ASCAP site.

The Tina Turner album he produced for and contributed vocals for was released around in the US, Canada, the UK, Japan, etc. This is verified at discogs.com, which also lists McMahon on 3 other national / international releases in varying roles.

In regards to criteria for WP:MUSIC, he meets multiple items on the criteria list including #1 - has been subject of multiple works appearing in sources that are reliable... #10 notable compilation album, #11 rotation nationally my major radio / music television network. #12 Has been featured subject across national radio or TV network. As only one is required, he meets four, making McMahon notable, by our standards.

Also, he is eligible for notability under Creative professionals, #1 Widley cited by peers or successors" See above re: Veronica De La Cruz, Rob Lowe, Monte Pittman, etc. all of whom are creative peers with their very own wiki pages. #3 Creating or co-creating a significant or well known work,... or of reviews. As posted, his YouTube music video has almost 200,000 views, making it a "well known work".

He is also eligible for notability under Entertainers #2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. McMahon has 15,000 Twitter followers, 21,000 Instagram followers, 15,000 MySpace followers, etc. This would be considered a large fan base or a significant cult following, again, making him eligible for notability. FeerTheDeer (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FeerTheDeer (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll explain through the following guidelines:

-WP:GNG: All mentions found in independent reliable sources (including those within the article's references such as the pieces on ESPN, Delaware Today, and Washington Times) contain passing or brief - not significant - coverage.

-WP:MUSIC: Criterion #1 is basically the "significant coverage" standard (see above). As for the other criteria, from what I can tell based on credits/directories/profiles listed at Allmusic/Discogs/MTV/Soundlift/last.fm, plus sites with an apparent affiliation with the subject (IceCoday, IAC Music, The Spark), I do not see anything online to indicate that this guideline is met.

-WP:CREATIVE: I suppose the "widely cited" note in criterion #1 can be interpretation but a retweet and the occasional namedrop does not seem sufficient. #2 and #4 do not apply; nor does #3 as the subject's work has not been the subject of a book, film, or multiple independent articles/reviews.

-WP:ENT: #1 and #3 do not apply, and #2 is generally proven not by YouTube subscribers or Twitter followers but by independent coverage indicating the person has a "large fan base" or "cult following".

The common thread here is an apparent lack of significant coverage. For example, getting mentioned on ESPN.com as a golf manager does not make one notable. But being the subject of an ESPN article (or at least a few paragraphs) would go a long way towards establishing notability. Getting signed to a record label and providing vocals for a song on a tribute album does not make one notable. But getting your album reviewed in Rolling Stone would go a long way towards establishing notability. Appearing on Oprah does not make one inherently notable. Receiving detailed (i.e., more than a couple sentences) coverage of the appearance(s) in a reputable publication would be a helpful start. Again, these are just examples. I'll be happy to reconsider if additional information is presented. Gong show 01:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Gongshow. Caffeyw (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gongshow - I appreciate your input. Again, I think any reasonable person would argue that 4 appearances on Oprah, a documentary on Golf Channel, 200,000 views, airplay on MTV, 50,000+ social media followers, etc would definitely qualify one as notable. 50,000 strangers decided to follow his every word, but 5 editors on Wikipedia think it's not? Doesn't make sense. The guy is notable. Maybe I hang out with the wrong crowd, but nobody I know has been on Oprah once let alone 4 times, or ever had any kind of documentary they were in on national tv, or airplay on MTV (or VH-1, etc). I'm not arguing with you (in particular) but arguing your argument (if that makes sense lol). I would continue to argue Music #1, as he's had multiple works released nationally and overseas that are documented. One can search his name on iTunes, Amazon, etc and find the releases. Creative #1, he fits the very definition of widely cited by peers, right from their mouths. I guess I'm just a bit confused, as before we even started this article, we went to the Wiki Live Help Chat Room to see if this was something we should pursue. The editors there had us write it in the sandbox, which we did, and helped us edit / add sources, remove certain things, before we published it. There were 4 editors there who helped us through the process. We wouldn't have wasted our time if it was just going to be deleted. And it would make more sense if any of the editors in the Live Chat had said along the way, this may be an issue of notability. FeerTheDeer (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FeerTheDeer. I understand your points, and would kindly suggest that for Wiki's puroposes, achieving notability is not so much about going out and doing things, but having others notice/discuss those things in detail. That's why I'm more interested in what people have to say (in detail, not 140 characters or less) about the Oprah appearances than the appearances themselves, or who's talking about the subject's appearance in a documentary (in detail, not just a sentence or two) more than the appearance itself, or who (independent of/unrelated to the subject) has remarked on the person's musical works, not merely that such works exist. As for social media, many Beliebers have YouTube subscribers and Twitter followers in the six figures - there's a distinction between them and someone with a "notable" large fan base, and it has to do with in-depth coverage (see my WP:ENT bullet point above). Hope this helps clarify the types of material I'm looking for. Gong show 17:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major record label artist. Meets WP:MUSIC. AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Gongshow, WikiDan & Taylor, I will do what you've asked and come up with the specific links in the next few days. Again, I know you guys aren't here just to destroy our work, but to make Wiki better :) Thanks for your assistance. Be back soon.FeerTheDeer (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sorry for telling the others who worked on it to come here. I didn't realize that was frowned upon. Still newbies :-/ FeerTheDeer (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I'm sorry but I do not feel this person is notable to have an article about. I'm confused about his album titled One. I'm assuming it never got released? If that is the case,then he has never released an album of his own work? Also the refs are poor. Number 18 about his work with Madonna goes to a outdated Geocities blog that looks broken. Ref or link number 28 goes to a site called Bandcamp that looks like a fan site or blog that people donate money to.--BeckiGreen (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find the kind of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources necessary to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards. Taylor Trescott, WikiDani61, GongShow and Becki Green have also made the effort without results. All this talk about Google hits, Twitter followers, YouTube videos, social networking and TV talk show appearances, none of which establish notability, simply show that those who wrote this promotional article simply don't understand what notability means on Wikipedia. Particularly weak is the claim that he is notable for passing mentions that he manages a non-notable professional golfer, who has played in exactly one major tournament, winning a prize of exactly $0.00. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 - The non-notable professional golfer you mention, was a cast member of a reality show on a major network (Golf Channel) and played in the U.S Open. A simple search of his name on Google revealed tons of coverage. He was also part of the documentary with McMahon. So it seems your judgement on notable may not be so trustworthy. Further, you mention notable as per Wikipedia standards, which McMahon clearly meets. 4 appearances on the Oprah show, broadcast through most of the world, a record deal with a major label (which by wikipedia standards, automatically makes him eligible), an internationally (& domestically) released Tina Turner album, and airplay on MTV all count towards his eligibility. FeerTheDeer (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - McMahon is with a major record label which automatically makes him eligible via WP:MUSIC Four nationally broadcast episodes of Oprah's Lifeclass on a major US, Canada & UK cable channel, and AirPlay on MTV also constitute eligibility. His extensive work with other Wikipedia subjects also makes him eligible, as well as his Tina Turner release which is available around the world online and in stores. The traffic driven to the subjects page also shows that there is enough interest to keep the article up. 400 page views in 3 days. AxeStaticProcess (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the increase in page views might be related to this discussion?Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did some wikifying of the article, as others have too, plus removed the "social networking fame" section and deleted some POV verbiage -- a bit easier to see the forest through the trees now, altho the article still needs work. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article is justified when it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. In the case of McMahon, the relevant inclusion guidelines would be general notabiliyt which applies to all subjects, and biograghies of musicians which is topic specific. In the case of general notability, we lack the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy the guideline. With respect to the musician specific criteria, I don't see that any of the criteria are truly met. One might argue that appearance with Oprah may satisfy criterion 12 but for me, appearing on a talk show is not being the featured subject. There have also been arguments that "McMahon is with a major record label which automatically makes him eligible via WP:MUSIC" which I interpret to assert that criterion 5 has been met; however that criterion specifies 2 album releases from the major label, and not simply being signed to a label so that criterion is not met either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Whpq, he is automatically qualified because of #11 - has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or network. Also, he didn't just appear on a talk show. He was a guest on 4 constitutive Oprah shows, live tweeted those shows with her and writes for OWN section off Huffington Post for the show. AuthorAuthor - thank you, for wikifying the article. It does sound less POV now. The Live Chat editors also were debating about the Social Media section, but told us to leave it in and it could always be taken out later. FeerTheDeer (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Please provide the specifics of the song placed on rotation nationally. -- Whpq (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything user Whpq posted above and have the same question he posted above. Also it does not matter if he meets #11 if he is failing to meet the other criteria under WP Music. Also a lot of the ref's are not reliable. The whole Kyle and Madonna section in the article fails as ref # 17 is a blind gossip bit on a Google alt.gossip.celebrities group. Ref #7 goes to IAC music,and the paragraph about Kyle there has so may grammatical errors and no sources for anything,it reads like it was written by a fan. Can anyone give me an answer about his album titled One? It reads in the article like it was never released,if that is the case, he has never realeased an album of his own,correct? Music wise,he has sung on one song on a compilation album. What song of Kyle's,if any have charted? Can anyone provide proof that is NOT from a blog,like proof from a Billboard chart? BeckiGreen (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BeckiGreen, he meets #11. There are no conditions with this. Nowhere does it state you have to meet this one, but only if that one. He meets #11, he's eligible. In RE: song being played nationally, the video has received MTV airplay and is still listed on their On Demand page.

You can buy the Tina Turner song here on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/rose-reiter/id17315487 Also available on Spotify: https://play.spotify.com/artist/7ipe9nOumUW6uDkOA5VVId FeerTheDeer (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - wow, this is really stretching notability to nano levels of thinness. No specifics were actually answered so I am going to try to interpret the above answer as best I can on my query about criterion 11. Firstly, nobody in the above discussion has actually stated which song was placed on rotation nationally. Based on all the "Tina Turner" mentioned, I'm assuming that the song in question is "I Don't Wanna Fight". I'm assuming that the particular version that is in question is not the Tina Turner recording in 1993 when McMahon would have been about 6 years old, but is the Rose Reiter recording of it. However, he is not the primary artist for this recording (contributing vocals), but more importantly, there is no evidence of it being placed on rotation nationally. Being on iTunes, or being listed on the MTV site is not proof.-- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that nowhere does it say that McMahon's video has received MTV airplay. Anybody can create an MTV artist page (just try searching for any random name, and it'll probably have a page) and add songs/videos to it. A reliable source is needed to prove the video has been aired. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since FeerTheDeer, did not answer my question about the album titled One, I'm going to guess it was never released,since thats what I think from reading the Kyle McMahon page. And as for the argument of- He meets #11. There are no conditions with this. Yes there are. And the condition is this-Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. I don't see where Kyle McMahon has been placed in rotation by a major radio or music television network. I have tried to Google, What's Love? A Tribute to Tina Turner, and I cannot find anything about it charting. I tried Billboard, I tried various terms and wording on Google for What's Love? A Tribute to Tina Turner, and all I can find are sites where the cd is for sale and that's it. Where is the proof or source that Kyle has been placed in rotation by a major radio or music televesion network? because I cant seem to find one. Having a song that Kyle Mcmahon sung backing vocals on iTunes and Spotify, I don't think is proof of being a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. And ref #10, his ASCAP writer credits,leads me to the ASCAP page, where I fill in his name and hit the search button. This does not work when I tried it. I tried his name on the ASCAP page,and checked each tab at the the ASCAP page,writers, performers,publishers etc and when I hit the search button, nothing happens. Maybe the ASCAP page does not work on an iPad? FeerTheDeer, can you provide a source for #11-Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network? --BeckiGreen (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be best for these SPA's to be removed, completely stricken, or possibly just restart this AfD Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that we can count on the closing administrators to discount and ignore any opinions that are not based on policies and guidelines. In my opinion, there have been a fair number in this debate, but they are easily recognizable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 20 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franko (currency)[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. No coverage in independent WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't see any evidence of notability. Cliff12345 (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Delete, this is spam/advertisement and has no business on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.117.207 (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability, appears almost as an advertisement, and references are all either from the company itself, or a blog. Caffeyw (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –Wine Guy~Talk 18:36, 14 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Chawla[edit]

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

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

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

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

There's assertions of notability but there's no independent third party sources in the article, only mentions on Twitter, Facebook, and the like. I don't think the subject of the article is notable enough at present to qualify for an article on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Third Party references added in Ayaan Chawla article.

Regards

Ron Gates —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC) — Ron Gates (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Chawla is a 16-year-old high-school student with lots of drive, but no actual indications of notability. He has founded some companies (or at least launched some web pages) but there is no indication that these companies are at all significant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited.

Passed Ayaan Chawla article has been edited and I think now this article is proper. Thanks Daviddavidusa1 —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Daviddavidusa1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock puppet contributions stricken.[reply]
Comment In what way has it been edited to make it "proper"? What changes have been made to address the fact that no indication is given that Chawla meets the criteria for inclusion. Where is the evidence of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great kid, but not notable Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed As i have reviewed Ayaan Chawla's article and i found some links of third party, and those links are of Microsoft website and Intel Website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddavidusa1 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Sock puppet contributions stricken.[reply]

Comment I am agree with Daviddavidusa1 as I have mentioned in this article the external third party links. And I found about Ayaan Chawla while I was purchasing domain for me through his company Asian Fox Developments and after my research I found these details which i have mentioned in article. Ayaan's company has served to over thousands of people. And after Google search I found the Intel website and on that, I got details of his company that his company is partner with Intel and after more search i got details that in this age he is partner of biggest technology companies in world like Microsoft, Intel & more. An even today i got details that his company is being partner with IBM also. That's the reason why i have contributed this article on Wikipedia about a kid named Ayaan Chawla. After going on his personal website i found his personal details that he was winner of well known company of softwares called Telerik after a seminar/webinar, and he got award as best developer. But in last it's reviewers choice about this article. Regards Ron Gates

Comment Hello [[User:WikiDan61|WikiDan61], as you have written that he launched some web page, but i would like to tell his companies are registered. Regards Ron Gates —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ron Gates and Daviddavidusa1: You have mentioned that the article has reliable third party links, but I don't think you have read the guidelines on reliable sources if you consider these reliable and significant coverage. The Intel link is based on the fact that Chawla registered his company with Intel, a process anyone can do. There is nothing significant about this. The Microsoft link is a link to Chawla's own blog (a primary source) and even if reliably sourced, is also insignificant, because registering with Microsoft is as easy as registering with Intel. There is nothing exclusive about these processes. And whether or not Chawla's companies are "registered" (whatever that means, and whatever evidence there is to verify it), there is still nothing to indicate that this isn't just another ambitious kid trying to make himself look impressive. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello WikiDan61, now I got your point. but i have viewed some articles like BigRock and much more, which doesn't have reliable references, so that's why i have put these links as references. Regards Ron Gates —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The presence of other poorly sourced articles is not an argument to retain this poorly sourced article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Passed (No Deletion) I have reviewed this article of a kid and i found this article to be contributed on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyankachabra71 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Priyankachabra71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock puppet contributions stricken.[reply]
Passed - My review of this article is approval, thanks Ron Gates for contributing good articles like this to Wikipedia. Meerachopra31 —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Meerachopra31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock puppet contributions stricken.[reply]

Comment - An investigation into sock puppetry to which this page may be involved has started. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ron Gates. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sock puppet comments stricken. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:36, 20 August 2013 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Kinnaird[edit]

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

I don't get it. What is this person notable for? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The claim to notability is that she was a socialite and heiress. She was the adopted daughter of Richard Sharp (politician) and a friends with Dora Wordsworth with whom she corresponded. This correspondence has been noted in books, but they are mostly snippet views so context is lacking. I suspect that she was notable for her time. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I presume that Charles Kegan Paul was the noted publisher. The fact that he should write and publish her biography suggests notability. I know that notability is not inherited, but I suspect that literary historians find such books useful as sources on notable authors. If she was notable in her time, she is WP-notable now. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This woman was extremely notable in her time and the fact that this not now recognized argues the case for her inclusion in Wikipedia. She was the wife of Thomas Drummond. Her adoptive father, Richard Sharp (politician) introduced her to many politicians, artists, and literary personalities of the era with whom she established herself as a popular hostess. She was romantically linked to the younger Romilly and to Macaulay, a favourite of the artist Turner and of her biographer Kegan Paul. She was popular with Sidney Smith, Wordsworth and many others. She states that she was instrumental in nurturing the romance between her friend Lord John Russell - the future Prime Minister - and Lady Ribblesdale. Some distinct 'notability' lies in the great (and fully acknowledged) support that she gave her husband, Thomas Drummond, in his demanding position as Under-Secretary for Ireland (1835-1840).

There are relatively few women in Wikipedia and there should be room for such a notable hostess who moved in such interesting circles as illustrated by the following, "‘…Dined with Bunburys….We left early & went to a party at Mrs Drummond’s, which was very pleasant. Lady Morley was there, and Miss Lister, to whom she introduced me; Westmacott, whom I do not think Mrs Drummond – from her open praise of him - has an idea of marrying; the Sydney Smiths, Milmans, Mr Babbage, Faraday, Professor Wheatstone – who is a little man, young with spectacles, whom I should never have looked at had I not been told he was a lion. Faraday was there to look at the lamps, which are his own sort and consume their own smoke, and are twice as brilliant as any others. Mrs Drummond’s house (in Hyde Park Gardens) is quite lovely. Sydney Smith’s idea is perfect – that the drawing room is the nearest thing to the Arabian Nights he ever saw. The walls are painted, the ceiling painted and gilt, the chairs white and gold, and looking glasses in all directions. Mrs Drummond was pleasant, as I think she generally is, and keeps her people well alive by always moving.’" (Gertrude Sullivan: A Family Chronicle, pub.1908.)

Maria Kinnaird (Drummond) was a woman of Whig significance during the post-regency period and her Wikipedia entry should not be considered for deletion until Kegan Paul's biography of her (Maria Drummond - A Sketch) has been read and fully appreciated.

Mariakinnaird (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frillo[edit]

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

I declined a WP:CSD#A7 on a rather flimsy pretext, as the company does make a claim of having a possibly novel business model, and there are some sources. Unfortunately, they all look like press releases, and there's no actual independent coverage out there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability as yet. Deb (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 19:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If there is no mark-up, I would guess there is no means of paying the overheads, making it a shortterm wonder. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and for lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:34, 20 August 2013 (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 by User:RHaworth per CSD G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dabangg 3[edit]

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

Per WP:crystal/WP:NFF, the sources I found indicate that as of this month the script is not even written and its not planned to be released until 2015. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was deleted in May 2013 because of the same issue. I have tagged this for speedy deletion. SL93 (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Turning an article into a disambiguation page ≠ deletion, so WP:SK#1 applies. Please fix this through normal editing. postdlf (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powerhouse (band)[edit]

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

Okay, now what... the fuck? Why do we have multiple subjects sharing a page like this? Some of them pass WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2 but unless we can find some evidence that they are connected I'm tempted to construct a disambiguation page out of this. Laun chba ller 08:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion. One act had a #13 hit single in the UK, one hit #38, both cited to my favourite source for chart positions, British Hit Singles & Albums, hence both meet WP:NMUSIC. As Launchballer says, a disambiguation page is the way to go, not deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any others which are notable?--Laun chba ller 14:21, 13 August 2013 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Georgeff[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP at my talk page; original rationale of "Promotional article, likely written by subject himself - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL" remains valid. This player has never played in a fully-professional league, and he has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Giant Snowman 08:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Event No.3: Youngest Player ever to play OR score in the NBN State Super League with Adamstown Rosebud FC at 15yrs 10 months old.^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the subject in action: http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/houston-dynamo-james-georgeff-in-action-vs-dc-united-nachrichtenfoto/81910071 Article of subject in action for Houston Dynamo: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/dynamo-open-festival-win-over-tfc Another article of subject with Houston Dynamo: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/quakes-return-bay-area-preseason-game I know of this player - it seems he has played for a few professional teams. I will try find some more references on those, but he is first australian in history to be drafted to the MLS. He was also the first austrlaian ever and only australian ever to be the number one draft pick in the MISL. He actually was drafted to both drafts in the same month. He was also noted as being the youngest player ever to play for the Adamstown Rosebuds which played in the NBN State Super League - which Bild.de recently published an article on, being professional. The subject also made multiple appearances and scored goals for FC Arouca in portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject also made an appearance in this league this year - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu%C3%9Fball-Regionalliga_Nordost Fußball-Regionalliga Nordost - which you can read in wiki in German, which calls this league professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Samej1902 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Notable Event No.1 : First ever Australian to be drafted to Major League Soccer. ^[3] ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Event No.2: First ever Australian to be drafted to MISL. AND - First ever Australian to be drafted as NUMBER 1 overall pick in USA to the Major Indoor Soccer League. MISL. ^[5]^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note that Georgeff9 (talk · contribs) and Samej1902 (talk · contribs) are the same editor. Giant Snowman 10:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Event No.3: Youngest Player ever to play OR score in the NBN State Super League with Adamstown Rosebud FC at 15yrs 10 months old.^[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EXTRA non directly related, but still, notable events:

- Playing for Houston Dynamo in the MLS: MLS picture here ^[8] - Playing in the Texas Pro Soccer Festival in Cibolo, Texas. "The contest was the opening game of three Dynamo appearances in the inaugural Texas Pro Soccer Festival in Cibolo, Texas", which was a FULLY PROFESSIONAL tournament of only MLS teams. see article^[9] -Playing for FC Arouca, professional team in Portugal - div2. Shown in the following link is the source having played (only league appearances counted) with FC Arouca of Perotugal.^[10]

At the end of the day - The article has references to each and every point made from my opinion. The claim being made is about an athlete who was the first aussie to be drafted in MLS, I find that claim to be adequately proved. The claim about being the first aussie and number 1 draft pick to the MISL, is also cited and proved. The claim as being a 'soccer player' currently playing in Europe - I feel is satisfied, and Being an Australian citizen, they don't often let people live in Germany for a 3/4 year holiday, nor would it be allowed to be on another visa type and earn money... It seems this claim is proven. The other extra add on claims all seem to be proven in the articles references also. Assessing the professional involvement of this player - seems nothing exceptional, however, it would be hard to suggest that the individual is not regarded (from the numerous independent articles) to have made a career from the sport, and that this career has received notoriety from several countries all independently showing a significant career after the historical events (which are the basis of this article"first aussie..etc..") has taken place. All extra info simply comes from assessing the sources which give the info on the original claim. In my modest opinion, the article seems fact driven, neutral, and by no means would further the individual in any way, except bringing the overall scope of already available information from independent sources of many different countries to one easy to find medium. As the publisher, I would be quite happy to delete the 'extra' info included - but I feel it makes the article more interesting and holds factual basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick points in reply - something being true does not mean something is notable. The article is promotional - what links/relationship do you have with the player? And what do you mean you are the "publisher"? Giant Snowman 13:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman - I am a soccer expert. Thats my relationship to the player. It so happens, from looking at the poorly kept examples of the 'reality' of the information on here, I want to do my part to start to get true info on here. For me, to see here, US 3rd div soccer being called professional... and then the 4th division in Germany where some players are earning 50,000Euro in a week... be not considered on the same level... AT LEAST is very poor representation. Yes, the sources are maybe more available making it easier to 'promote' but as you say, just because something is published, doesn't mean it is really true in essence. I mean "publisher" - as in I wrote this article. What do you mean "promotional"? Where does the article promote the player for anything other than the facts given by independent sources, completely separate to the player. Promotional would be saying other facts that are not relevant such as he earned a 4 year contract with Adidas through his first overall draft pick in the MISL. Things like that are promotional, and non relevant. Please define what you mean by 'promotional' to the actual source... as in promoting something directly to the players benefit...? (Samej1902 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - did James Georgeff actually play in MLS? No. He played in the Portuguese third tier in the 2008–09 season, as confirmed by this site (8 apps, 1 goal), but that is not a fully-professional league and playing in it does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman - Is being the overall first draft pick in the Major League Draft in the US a notable event? Is being the first ever Australian drafted to the Major League a notable event? I think so. In fact, as I browse some of the leagues that are defined here as professional, it stumps me... Now... I am somewhat of an expert in soccer... and to call the 3rd div of US soccer professional... when German 6th division teams earn much more... means someone "promoted" certain leagues in some way. I agree with you, playing in any league doesnt confer notability. Though, how many major league first draft picks in ANY major league sport - mind you, the first of their country of origin, to be the 1st overall draft pick in a Major League Sport to be not be seen as having notoriety in that sport?? So you are telling me that when the NFL or the NBA makes their 1st round draft pick... that this player, would not have notoriety until he starts playing in league games? That would be an interesting take if so...

GiantSnowman, I really do feel, that based on other articles on this very web site, as references, that not including this athlete based on notoriety of achievements would be unfair and not in consistency with other bios on this website.

If the basis of this is the player not having notoriety - then we disagree on this but I respect your opinion, and I welcome the thoughts of other people. I know experts in the field who I will try get a hold of to add some comments if possible. If you can fully explain the elements of this you find 'promotional' then let me know, I will then go ahead and explain the significance of these elements, or re-edit the article. I think this is an easy problem to solve.

GiantSnowman - If you even look at the link you gave me showing me the 'fully professional leagues' I notice League 2 in england (the 4th division). Now the Citation to that is here - !! ^[11] Now... this article says pretty clearly in the body... that the player they interviewed works as a school teacher and plays part time. It is pretty clear from the article and from my knowledge that this is quite normal in League 2. So, how come there are players who have bio's who have played a few minutes of ONE game in League 2, and NO other major acclaims, be included as notorietable inclusions?... If you need the direct links to some of these bio's just ask, I would rather not point fingers first though... and this is not even mentioning the inclusions of players who play in the US 3rd division that in no way shape or form is professional... yet includes players who have only played this level... In all fairness sir, there is a big difference between playing 3 minutes in league 2 England, and playing multiple games in the portuguese 2nd div and being the first draft pick to MISL, and first ever aussie drafted to MLS. That again though, is just my opinion. I understand and respect yours though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does he meet WP:GNG? No. Why? He hasn't received any significant coverage and those events that were just listed are not notable. Does he meet WP:NFOOTBALL? No. Why? He hasn't played in a fully professional league. – Michael (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does be meet WP:GNG? Clearly yes. (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=coxatlanta&page=/soc-npsl/news/CZN4126691.htm) & (http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/sports/ucf-soccer-star-drafted-into-mls-1.1422169) & (http://www.theherald.com.au/story/497848/georgeff-at-home-on-international-voyage/). Just 3 references that show definite significant coverage - took 1 min to get those. Being first overall draft pick to major league not notable?? Being first Australian to ever to drafted to a major league sport not notable?? It was never done before, and has not been done since... not notable?? Never played in a professional League - I see League 2 in England is considered professional - read this - (http://www.albionroad.com/football-leagues/football-league-two.html). Now, because it is clear league 2 (the 4th div.) shown as fully professional by this website, do we go ahead and remove all the players who have their bio's on here when they have played just a few minutes in league 2 and no other achievements? Can we look at what already is approved as a basis for this being notable... instead of weird interpretations for this particular case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he never played in League Two, nor was he drafted first overall in the MLS Draft. Being drafted in the MISL doesn't count as notable. Preseason doesn't count as notable. And again there's no significant coverage. So it's clear that he fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does he meet WP:NCOLLATH? Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A college Major League Draft is about the most significant, most staged part of every college year. To be the Number 1 draft pick for any major league sport is notable, let alone being the first of your countrymen, in not just one sport, but 2... Again, notable? Meets WP:NCOLLATH? Yes. And, likely other qualifying criteria also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say it again, he was not drafted no. 1 overall in a major sport. He was the last draft pick in the 2008 MLS Supplemental Draft and the MISL is not fully pro. So no, he doesn't even meet WP:NCOLLATH – Michael (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikemor92#Professional_indoor_soccer - Please read this entry. (Samej1902 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC))~~ ............................. College athletes Shortcut:[reply]

   WP:NCOLLATH

College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:

   Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.
   Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame).
   Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.

......................................

Where does it mention above about the sport and its professionalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Mikemor92 - he was not drafted as number one pick into a major sport? Is that the claim of the article? or the criteria needing to be met?? Once again - the point is very simple.[reply]

- - - - First Australian in History to be drafted to the Major League Soccer, & First Australian to be drafted as the number one overall draft pick for a Major League Sport & both these events happened at the same time. This had coverage noted in Australia and in the USA in multiple sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere—certainly not in the US, at least. Any degree of professionalism in a sport costs you your eligibility to continue to play at the collegiate level in the NCAA. That's why the question was asked whether he meets the notability criteria as a college athlete, since it doesn't appear that he does as a professional. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samej1902 - Why don't you take a look here and tell me if he was drafted no. 1 overall? – Michael (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikemor92 - you looked at the MLS draft. You are not looking at the article in discussion here. He was the first overall draft pick to the Major Indoor Soccer League. Take a look (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=coxatlanta&page=/soc-npsl/news/CZN4126691.htm) He was simply ALSO drafted to the MLS in the same month. Both events being the first time for an Australian College athlete. C.Fred - I am unsure what you mean? No where what? Please go to the original article in question and take a look at some references... they are almost all US sources. The player WAS a college student... NO longer... so I am unsure why we are talking about college eligibility? Or when the questions changed from pro or college, point is, you only need to satisfy on category to prove notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up WP:NCOLLATH. So the question is, why are you talking about college eligibility? And if you look at WP:FPL, you can see there's nothing that says MISL is fully pro. As for MLS, he was drafted in the Supplemental Draft which doesn't make him notable either. – Michael (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS here is the ultimate question:

WP:NCOLLATH College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other. YES or NO. http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=coxatlanta&page=/soc-npsl/news/CZN4126691.htm http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/sports/ucf-soccer-star-drafted-into-mls-1.1422169 http://www.theherald.com.au/story/497848/georgeff-at-home-on-international-voyage/ Is this non trivial? Being the first Australian in History to be a number one draft and drafted to MLS (2 notable events)? Is this media coverage beyond simply repeating stats? Answer quite clearly is yes. Very clearly. Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer quite clearly is no. Why? Because it was the MLS Supplemental Draft and the MISL is not fully pro, so I shouldn't have to explain why being drafted in the MISL draft isn't notable. – Michael (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite all the verbiage in this discussion, I'm not seeing anything to indicate that the player has met the notability guideline or played in a fully professional league. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Subject has not been shown to have played in a fully-professional league, so fails the football (soccer)-specific notability guideline. Signing with or being drafted by a club in such a league isn't enough, and as pointed out somewhere above, the Portuguese Second Division is actually the third tier and not fully pro. I'm no expert on US college sports, but I don't see how he passes that guideline either. And the media coverage in the article isn't enough in my opinion to pass the general notability guideline.
Incidentally, the insistent wall of text hyping minor accomplishments doesn't half remind me of the Jordan Older AfD. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we've seen this countless times before. He doesn't pass GNG, he hasn't done anything of note in the world of football and he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL either. This is a promotional article (IMO) with no merit. BigDom (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MISL is Professional (http://misl.uslsoccer.com/About/index_E.html) Please read that from the MISL homepage. Thanks. To add to this drawn out discussion - no where is anyone asking for whether this player played professional in which leagues. The criteria here, as noted several times is as a college student. If you read the article, he is noted as being first Aussie drafted into MLS and first Aussie being number one draft pick in a Major League Sport (MISL). To add - to call the US second division, and 3rd division professional, and not the 2nd or 3rd divisions of Portugal professional is an interesting stance.

Instead of stating answers to questions not asked, please present a case against this criteria, not the professional stuff. The article doesn't claim professionalism! It claims number 1 draft pick! And first aussie to do so in MLS and MISL. Again - look at the criteria wiki gives- WP:NCOLLATH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate notability. Please note that the NCOLLATH that you keep on yammering on about states "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." That has not happened. Giant Snowman 10:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL. Being drafted isn't enough until he plays for a fully professional team which as far as I can see hasn't happened here (A-League) or in the U.S. A search of news sources fails to identify any significant coverage, which fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG . Flat Out let's discuss it 10:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOLLATH is clearly satisfied. If the article references 20+ articles are considered, it is seen this is NOT 'merely repaeting stats, NOT merely mentions in game summary, and not routine coverage. The sources are (as seen in article references) are international, not just US. Being drafted is very truly not enough. Being drafted 1st overall, being drafted to MLS and MISL, and being the first of a country to do so... especially in one of the drafts as 1st overall draft pick, in a Major League Sport... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage? I couldn't find a single news article in Australia except for this in a regional paper You are confusing significance with notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The event took place in FL, USA. This was not an Australian event. But, even so, it made the "Herald" brand of news papers in another country outside the event geography - hence, it was more than 'national' coverage. From what I have seen, the event was the primary discussion produced in articles in FL, in SC, Online in numerous locations (online is online) and also in print again in Australia.

Comment: The mention in the Newcastle Herald, a regional Fairfax publication, doesn't relate to the draft. I haven't found any news coverage in the U.S, if you have perhaps you could list them? Flat Out let's discuss it 14:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just got off the phone with an editor in FL at the University of Central Florida, the college of the previous source, and as it so happens, he received some type of coveted award for the notable event described in the article. This is the equivalent of a hall of fame addition as per the editor. This would pass WP:NCOLLATH right?

Comment: Wrong, unless you think anyone who wants to verify the source should ring the university guy. Flat Out let's discuss it 14:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For more info on the event type in google 'Georgeff' along with the words, drafted, first australian, UCF star... and so on. Many articles come up, as shown in the article being discussed here. If someone has the know-how, could they please add this to a discussion board for college soccer? I think this is more the issue than the professional argument. Thank you (Samej1902 (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You need to provide those "many articles" here so others can verify and assess them. My searches on the subject turn up very little of interest and virtually nothing by mainstream sources. For example, if the "first Australian drafted" was as notable as you suggest, then why didn't any significant news source pick it up? Flat Out let's discuss it 11:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it so happens, he received some type of coveted award for the notable event described in the article" - yes, what a coincidence! You have failed to demonstrate notability as a professional athlete, now you are trying to demonstrate notability as a college athlete. Is the award a major, national award? Why has him winning this "coveted" award not been mentioned in any sources, why did you have to ring his old University to get that informtion? Giant Snowman 13:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one article on the draft event as you requested: http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/sports/ucf-soccer-star-drafted-into-mls-1.1422169 I will add a couple more if I get a few more minutes time. @GiantSnowman - the award is 'like' a hall of fame award - I havent had time to look into it sorry, but I am not sure these events are closed to public or not, regardless, there is verifiable media that would show who has what awards at one of the biggest colleges in USA. (Samej1902 (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Here is another article @ Flatout which talks not purely about the drafting event but talks about the subject in regards to career since the event. http://www.theherald.com.au/story/497848/georgeff-at-home-on-international-voyage/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Here is another article @ Flatout which talks not purely about the drafting event but talks about the subject in regards to career since the event. http://www.theherald.com.au/story/497848/georgeff-at-home-on-international-voyage/ Here is the number 1 draft pick Major Indoor League press release. http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=coxatlanta&page=/soc-npsl/news/CZN4126691.htm Here is another on the draft event http://newsle.com/article/0/3782534/ (Samej1902 (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)) Here is an article which shows the subject being considered professional from sources probably as knowing as any, and neutral - http://www.clemsontigers.com/fls/28500/old_site/pdf/m-soccer/2011-12/misc_non_event/tigers_in_the_pros_all-time.pdf?SPSID=657787&SPID=103704&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=28500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Here is an article which shows the subject being considered professional from sources probably as knowing as any, and neutral - http://www.clemsontigers.com/fls/28500/old_site/pdf/m-soccer/2011-12/misc_non_event/tigers_in_the_pros_all-time.pdf?SPSID=657787&SPID=103704&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=28500 Here is an article of the subject taking part in a fully professional tournament with houston dynamo in the MLS. http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/dynamo-open-festival-win-over-tfc (I am not sure if the whole professionalism idea has any legs with the article, but regardless it is seperate from WP:NCOLLATH reasoning) Just thought I would show you @Flatout — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link above alone shows Georgeff has played professionally for Houston Dynamo in Major League Soccer during a 'pro cup' domestic cup, between 2 very professional teams, and as such passes WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY/N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was the TX Pro Cup, which doesn't count. So he still fails. – Michael (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN "2)Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." - TX Pro Cup - All pro teams - domestic fixture. Pass. (Samej1902 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand the terminology. The match wasn't a competitive fixture. It was a pre-season exhibition game, which is why the result had a positive effect on the Dynamo's exhibition play record, as referenced in the last sentence of the linked article: "The Dynamo improved to 3-0-1 in exhibition play in 2008 and 4-1-1 overall." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the professional fixture need to be at some certain point in the year? During season? Not before? I didnt notice that... It seems it was a very much 'competitive fixture', which was a 'cup', it had all pro teams, and there was a winner and places earned. Whether this was in June, August, December I am not sure makes a difference. So.. if the WP:FOOTYN is looked at... for what it states specifically, then it seems agreeable to the position I give. This was not called "the preseason friendly' group of games. It was a professional cup, with paying spectators, all pro players, no 'guests' etc. Very much the same as other major cups are usually not played during domestic games or seasons... thanks. (Samej1902 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I've tried, and I can't think of any good faith reason why a self-professed soccer expert (see bold type higher up this page) would appear not to understand the difference between a competitive match and an exhibition match. Struway2 (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add the contribution from whoever added this to the 'talk' section of this page. see below. ................................................ I am a professional sports reporter in the city of Houston (www.hinchatv.com) and have covered the Houston Dynamo ever since they started in 2006. Had the opportunity to meet James Georgeff back in 2008 when he signed with the team. I remember watching him at the Cibolo tournament during preseason and also like the Houston Dynamo official website mentions (http://www.houstondynamo.com/content/2008-reserve-league) he earned a few minutes during the reserve tournament. The reserve tournament is pretty much a chance for first team players, that are not regulars, to earn minutes while playing other professional teams from the MLS. As the STATUS says on the Dynamo page, he was under PRO not guest.

I have a few photos from when he was part of the team and will add them later today. ........................................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wow, I must admit I didn't read the whole discussion, but this guy fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played a match in a fully pro league. Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also fails the three criteria listed in WP:NCOLLATH. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it's a new article. Let it gel. Checkingfax (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to let it gel when it doesn't meet the notability guidelines? – Michael (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know this is an argument to avoid, but: I endorse the deletion because of the statements by the experienced editors here. What they say checks out. I was the one who approved this draft. I am responsible for so much wasted community time on this. When I looked up Houston Dynamo, I thought it was a professional team that that the subject had played for. I really don't understand sports. I won't approve any more sportsperson articles. I'm so sorry. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see that you have anything to apologise for Anna but while you're here - pls pop by my talk page more often :) Flat Out let's discuss it 07:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anna Frodesiak - thanks for your advice... on a subject you admit you have no idea about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this article for interesting comparison of views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johnny_Alcaraz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I am a professional sports reporter in the city of Houston (www.hinchatv.com) and have covered the Houston Dynamo ever since they started in 2006. Had the opportunity to meet James Georgeff back in 2008 when he signed with the team. I remember watching him at the Cibolo tournament during preseason and also like the Houston Dynamo official website mentions (http://www.houstondynamo.com/content/2008-reserve-league) he earned a few minutes during the reserve tournament. The reserve tournament is pretty much a chance for first team players, that are not regulars, to earn minutes while playing other professional teams from the MLS. As the STATUS says on the Dynamo page, he was under PRO not guest.

I have a few photos from when he was part of the team and will add them later today." -- This was me who posted this. My name is Miguel Sada and you can read an article on me on ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/hispanicheritage2011/news/story?id=7094144) about how I started my career in the US covering sports and being a soccer / football fan. After this article was published I've done a lot of sports coverage for major networks worldwide, but I'm based in Houston. I can vouch that James Georgeff was in fact in Houston, played for the Houston Dynamo and that the team is a professional team in the Major League Soccer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htownsports (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Anna. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FYI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samej1902. Giant Snowman 10:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I grant my full cooperation and permission for any wiki management to search my IP address, and the IP address of the 'others' GiantSnowman seems to be referencing as being the one account... Hopefully with the results of this, it is a little clearer who has which intentions. Thank you for raising the issue to assess the credibility of the users supporting this article! (Samej1902 (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It seems GS was correct as I see a ban this morning for sockpuppetry.Flat Out let's discuss it 00:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2013 (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 -- Y not? 13:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinos Laifis[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP that fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. He hasn't played in a WP:FPL, and he also hasn't played internationally. His one Europa League appearance, which is cited as being his claim to notability, was in a second round qualifying match, and those are generally not enough for notability. Not valid for BLP prod because it was restored by an admin on request, having previously been deleted via that method. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the admin who originally deleted, and then restored, the article. There is no evidence of notability, subject appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, re-reference and improve. There's longstanding consensus that a player appearing in a domestic or continental cup match between two teams from fully professional leagues is presumed notable. Mr Laifis played 90 minutes in a European qualifier for a Cypriot First Division club against an Allsvenskan club; both of those leagues are listed at WP:FPL. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus has generally been for the main stages of the tournament, not the qualifying rounds, as far as I am aware. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I'm aware. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, and the failure of WP:GNG outweighs his sole appearance in such a minor tournament. Giant Snowman 11:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can certainly can change, though I'm yet to see convincing evidence that it has in cases similar to this one. And I don't think that those of us who don't read Greek, me included, could decide in minutes that the subject of the article, as opposed to the article about the subject, fails GNG. There doesn't seem to be much in English: odd bits from when he was in the Forest academy, and Cyprus under-age international reports. It's a pity that the article's active editors haven't grasped the principle of sourcing.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your argument, if this were a player whose page was created years ago when he made his sole appearance in a "minor" tournament and he'd never done anything since. Mr Laifis is in the first-team squad of a club in a fully professional league, has played for them in the domestic cup, and is a current under-21 international for his country. I'm well aware that none of those things make him presumed-notable. But if consensus is still that playing in a cup competition between two FPL teams from does, then we should recognise that the presumption of notability as afforded by subject-specific guidelines is to allow time for GNG to be demonstrated (or for it to become clear that it's never likely to be). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point; where are Kosm1fent (talk · contribs) or Jogurney (talk · contribs) when you need them, eh? Giant Snowman 10:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (moved by Struway2 to separate comment, to avoid it interfering with main part of deletion discussion) I'm not overly impressed with the process of this article's original deletion. Looking at the history, we see that on 29 July last, the referenced article was vandalised and all references removed. Within 30 minutes, it was BLPPRODded. We're supposed to "Review the biography's history to confirm that it has not been vandalized especially if sources have been removed, and there is no more suitable referenced version to revert to", before BLPPRODding. If Mr Laifis' Soccerway profile, a source present in the unvandalised version of the article, had been checked, it would have confirmed his appearance in the European qualifier between two teams from fully professional leagues, which took place four days before the vandalism, and therefore the article's unsuitability for uncontroversial deletion by PROD. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to (try to) answer @Struway2:'s concerns about the deletion - do not let this diff fool you, the article was not "vandalised" and references were not removed. The edit on 29 July 2013 was actually a page creation, not an edit to an existing article, as the article had previously been deleted. It was deleted a second time by BLPPROD. Giant Snowman 11:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... I clearly wasn't reading straight. You'd think the automatic edit summary that starts "Created page..." might have been a bit of a giveaway... And please accept my apologies for thinking the deleting admin wouldn't have checked the validity of the BLPPROD before deleting (it did seem rather unlikely). And, if the prodder sees this, please would they also accept my apologies for maligning their correct use of the process. But it does seem wrong (not just misleading) for prior, unconnected, versions of a deleted article to appear in the history of an undeleted page, rather than just the history of the version being undeleted. Does that happen automatically? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! When I restored the article I restored the full history, as I believe is normally the case for all undeletions - further info is at Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. I didn't know that it would then cause a 'diff' between the two, as I don't ever recall being asked to undelete something which has been deleted multiple times before. Giant Snowman 12:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. If it were me, which it's never going to be, I might selectively restore just the history of the version I was undeleting. Apart from there's no logical connection between the history of previously deleted versions and that of the current one, restoring the lot does run the risk of reviving articles that were deleted for libel, or copyvio, or attack pages. Or articles about a different person entirely who just happens to share a name with the current subject. Don't suppose this is the right venue for this topic, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends how strongly you believe in attribution. Giant Snowman 13:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article being undeleted was created independently of any prior version, then only those contributions made at and since that independent creation need to appear in the page history. Contributors to articles deleted before the latest creation, by definition, never had any content in that latest creation, so, again by definition, don't need attribution. I think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How useful is to have this conversation now ? im just wondering , if you have a look at [| Gefles] page it appears to be as a professional team as by the first paragraph in there, furthermore if this page going to be deleted then i should nominate gefles page for deletion and the 3/4 for the teams because the User:Lukeno94 invented or started a new league for the teams that he thinks are fully professional or not. sorry for the pardon but this story started 1 minute after undeletion, without any real reason, there is intention to be deleted by some people. Regards Argento1985 01:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Enough references were provided about this player on my last edit [here], furthermore if a player is officially recognized by UEFA, it means that he is a professional. And as i know Europa League belongs to UEFA, that makes Anorthosis Famagusta F.C. at least a fully professional team or it should be allowed to it to participate, by that all the players that were assigned to the squad, and all the players that participated counts at least 1 participation OFFICIALLY, if they had no participation then they got their first, Thanks Argento1985 19:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also would like to keep this page because there way too many ref in there so you can check it your self. Deleting a page without any real reason is at least a shame. Argento1985 01:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of references given is not remotely a reason for keeping an article. And there is a real reason, see my nomination statement. Also, you REALLY need to stop attacking me, it doesn't help your case in the slightest. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to nominator. Please could you strike the words "and he wasn't playing for a fully-professional team" in the nomination rationale, as it's not actually correct. The Cyprus First Division is a fully professional league as listed at WP:FPL. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this article can satisfy the GNG. A Google search produces a few Greek-language articles that devote 1-paragraph to his signing with Anorthosis in November 2011, and I found a match report for the Gefle match which says he played as a left-sided defender (nothing else). There are a few other articles that mention he is a squad member, but nothing I can find describes something he's done that makes him notable. Jogurney (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources listed in the article are all player profiles, and search produce nothing significant, meaning the article fails WP:GNG. He is yet to play in a fully pro league, and to address the question above concerning his appearance in the Europa League qualifying, I've seen the issue come up about twenty times over the years, and have never seen a result other than delete. The most recent examples being Alexander Sørloth, Omri Altman, and Admir Adrović (2nd nomination) . Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are mistaken the consensus - the question isn't whether they play in a qualification match or in a group stage match, but whether they have played in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues (which is why playing in the League Cup presumes notability, while playing in the FA Cup doesn't even though the latter is a more prestigious tournament). All of the three AfD's you've mentioned above is about players that have appeared in matches where atleast one of the teams was not from a fully pro league. The players at e.g. JK Nõmme Kalju would not be considered notable per WP:NFOOTY even if their team qualifies for the 2013–14 UEFA Europa League group stage, as they play for a team that isn't fully pro. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to disagree with this assessment, and so did you in the past. In addition to Omri Altman whom I already referred to above, Aleksandar Mitrović (footballer) played qualifying for FK Partizan, Oliver Janso for a top flight Hungarian club, and Dimitris Pelkas for PAOK against Bnei Yehuda Tel Aviv F.C. All three were deleted, and you even !voted to delete Pelkas. As I've said above in the twenty or so afd's I've seen over the years where the principal claim to notability was an appearance in the qualifying rounds of the UEFA club competitions the articles were always deleted, regardless of which club the player in question was playing for or against. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you read what I've written in those AfD's, it is basically the same as I've written here: a player has to appear in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues regardless of competition to be presumed notable. In the case of Mitrovic, I voted before he played the match that would have made him notable in my eyes. As for Pelkas, you can see from my comment that I did a mistake, I thought the Israeli league was not fully pro and made the wrong vote. I believe this discussion at WT:FOOTY from September 2012 supports Struway and mine's view on the consensus, and I think it's a shame that Omri Altman was deleted without anyone mentioning that he actually had appeared in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps I was ill advised to put words in your mouth, but the basic argument stands. In each case, you're the only one pushing the "both clubs must be fully-pro" argument, and in the cases where it was relevant, the articles would probably have been deleted even if you had !voted keep on those grounds. As for the discussion, it's fairly limited in so far as it applies to this afd, has no clear consensus on the matter, and even makes my key for me. BigDom writes: "Do the players in qualifying matches between two fully-pro teams receive enough coverage to pass GNG, and do they receive any more coverage than the players in those matches where one or both teams are semi-professional?" The answer is clearly no. It's not without reason that WP:NFOOTBALL requires not just a particular club or two clubs involved in a match, but an entire league to be fully pro. Further up, GiantSnowman writes: "people are only notable if they meet GNG; they are only presumed notable if they meet NFOOTBALL." Which is basically my point. WP:NFOOTBALL was never intended to be some sort of arbitrary line, to be used in place of WP:GNG (though unfortunately its often treated as such), but as a rule of thumb to determine at a glance which footballers are likely to meet WP:GNG. Finally, the "both clubs must be fully pro argument" comes from national cup competitions, where it make sense. In most national cups, by the time fully pro clubs can play against each other, it'll be far enough into the season that you're average cup match is going to receive about as much coverage, if not more, than your average league match, especially if its between to higher division clubs. This clearly not the case in Europa League qualifying. By the group stage, maybe even the play-off round, it probably is. I'd go so far as to say that if a semi-pro club reached that stage of the competition, their players would probably notable, but barring exception circumstances, which is clearly not the case here, the qualifying rounds simply do not receive the kind of coverage necessary to confer notability on the players playing therein. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a long-standing consensus that playing in a cup-match between two teams from fully pro leagues, regardless of the "level" of the competition, is considered notable as per passing WP:NFOOTY. No-one is questioning the creation of dozens of articles after the first round of the Football League Cup, and a similar AfD would probably have been speedy kept, but when we are talking about a player in a Cypriotic league, people are actually considering deleting it. Clear case of English-speaking WP:BIAS. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a longer-standing concensus that 90 minutes of play in a fully-pro league (which is a level above what we have here) isn't enough if the article cannot satisfy the GNG - as is the case here. There's no point in having this article when reliable sources providing significant coverage are not available. Jogurney (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there is plenty of consensus that playing one match is not enough when it comes to former players. But if you take a look a this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Jeffrey (4th nomination), you'll see that a player that was deleted for failing GNG was kept after he had played 79 minutes in a fully pro league even though the subject still failed GNG. In principle I agree with you, but every article that was deleted for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY is recreated once NFOOTY is met while still failing GNG, and in this case I am trying to explain that Laifis is also passing NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a poor example because it was likely that the article satisfied the GNG prior to his first appearance in MLS (I said so in the 3rd AfD disuscion). Here we have a clear failure to meet GNG, and a far weaker case for keeping the article. Jogurney (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bias are completely unfounded here, Mentoz. You've also blatantly ignored the fact that the consensus is for only the main stages of the tournament - and your example, the first round of the League Cup, still fits that. Consensus for qualifying rounds is equally clear; that they're not enough on their own to satisfy notability. And we've had Greek-speaking editors coming in and saying that it fails GNG. Clear case of not assuming good faith, and/or not reading other people's statements correctly/at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I failed to assume good faith, but would you please guide me to the consensus where it says that playing for Swansea City in the Europa League against Malmö FF is worth less in terms of notability than playing a league-cup match for Swansea City against Barnsley? I believe this discussion at WT:FOOTY from September 2012 tells the contrary. From my point of view we should have the same rules for the English cups as for the European cups, and if it isn't then there is bias. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the same rules for all cups. If you play in the qualifying stages, that isn't regarded as being enough for notability. If this wasn't the case, then we'd have an insane number of lower-league players. If you play in the main stages, be that the group, or the knockout stages, then it is enough. The first round of the League Cup is in the main stage of the tournament, whereas the qualification rounds for the Europa League are not. I'm not sure why you referenced an MLS player in here, because league appearances are a separate argument. I'm also a little dubious of the claim that the Cypriot league is fully pro, even after reading the reference, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In August 2011, I asked HERE whether a player making his debut in the Europa League playoff round (the round before the group stage) would be notable, and if it made a difference if both teams involved in the match were fully pro. The replies varied: either a player appearing for an FPL club became notable whatever the competition, or a match involving a non-FPL team wouldn't count. But what none of the respondents said was that appearing in a qualifying round wasn't enough full stop end of.
So I duly created an article on Akwasi Asante, based on his two-minute cameo once the pride of the English second division was 3–0 up on their way to the group stage. Now it was a decent small article at the time, and contained pretty well everything I could find out about Mr Asante apart from his being a fan of Ruud van Nistelrooy, but I don't think it passed GNG.
It takes a bit of work to find enough in the English-language media to make an article about an 18-year-old player with 2 minutes onfield experience that looks at first glance as if it might pass GNG. But when relevant sources are in a foreign language, particularly in one with a non-Latin alphabet, it takes rather more than a bit of work. Most editors of en.wiki don't read Greek. Who'd expect them to? Bias towards subjects with sources in English is totally natural, and isn't restricted to football. Have a look at WP:Systemic bias: there's even a wikiproject dedicating to countering it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've expanded the article a little, and added some references, so there's a basis for some more knowledgeable editor to work from if the article is kept, or alternatively if it's undeleted again in the future. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hatzinikolis[edit]

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

Playing for Australia at junior level is not considered notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. Should wait until he plays for (not just is signed by) a fully professional club or plays for the senior national team, or has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - way too soon, fails WP:NFOOTY. Stalwart111 06:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Can be recreated without prejudice when he plays first match in FPl for senior team or makes senior international debut. Fenix down (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2013 (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 Kate Winslet. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Winslet[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, who hasn't done many roles in notable features. Notability is not inherited. Beerest355 Talk 02:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Kate Winslet, which already mentions her (could merge a bit, maybe). Simply not a notable actor in her own right. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 13 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faizul Latif Chowdhury[edit]

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

I cannot find coverage in secondary reliable sources that supports the lengthy list of facts mentioned in this article. The Legend of Zorro 10:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do we determine whether his books, translations and political positions are notable? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot say how much impact his books on Jibananda Das has made in Bangladesh but I have never heard his name in Bengali newspapers in West Bengal. I cannot say about his political positions but I am not seeing any coverage in secondary reliable sources. The Legend of Zorro 08:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Legend of Zorro 08:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Little impact in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtiaque Hossain[edit]

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

Article on non-notable subject created by himself Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any coverage of him as a journalist in independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find any. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has Conflict of Interest and it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability Guideline. Sourov0000 (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2013 (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 procedural close. Discussion has been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

Justin Kuykendall[edit]

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

Non notable executive of non notable company (see adjacent afd) references are essentially PR. Another example of the folly of the frequent promotional technique of trying to write more than one article on a very borderline subject--if either are noticed, both are liable to get deleted DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pulpo Media[edit]

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

non notable media firm with only promotional references. Content consists essentially of a directory of their executives. Prod previously removed. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but I bundled the article for the company's founder (created by the same user). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references here relate to the firm getting a contract from a presidential contender's campaign and some associated media coverage (at a time when the media would pick over every small campaign nuance): essentially WP:ONEEVENT whose notability derived from the campaign rather than the firm (WP:NOTINHERITED). AllyD (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Pulpo Media / Delete for Justin Kuykendall: I am against bundling the two discussions in one. For me, Justin Kuykendall has much lesser chance in notability. But the firm itself, Pulpo Media has some definit notablity merit. I have gone over many of the references given in both articles, and Pulpo Media seems to be considered an expert in Latin media related items at least in the booming Spanish media market in the United States (and not just some advisor to a US presidential candidate, which is just a small aspect of what they do). The company itself is often quoted by mainstream media for discussion of advertising in Latin media as a niche expert company. But in all fairness, what is required is an independent discussion of Pulpo Media as separate from its founder and CEO Justin Kuykendall so as not to mix "apples and oranges". I suggest each is listed separately for discussion and concensus reached on each article independently. As both are bundled here for discussion, I am for keeping Pulpo Media article, but deleting Justin Kuykendall article, which can always be a well-written short paragraph within the company article when discussing its establishment and operational history to date. werldwayd (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pulpo Media; close Justin Kuykendall nomination and renominate it separately for procedural reasons. (Although I will probably !vote "delete" when it is listed, I don't think you can add a bundled second nomination a week after the original nomination.) As for Pulpo Media, I found little or nothing at Google News Archive [15], and the references listed in the article are either not significant or not from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated them separately. I almost never make joint nominations. I'm not clear who combined them, but I do not think it was a good idea. (especially as nobody bothered to notify me--if they had, I would have probably reverted it) Though the notability of an executive and his company are somewhat connected, they're not identical--in particular, the person is likely to have done other things, which may add to the notability, and additionally the standards for BLPs have some special factors. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 19 August 2013 (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 Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brydges[edit]

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

A classic biography of a living person notable for one thing only and absolutely nothing else. The article was previously reduced to a redirect, but has been recently expanded. Unfortunately, it now seems to contain tittle-tattle gossip, which while sourced, is largely based on reports by the Daily Mail and Digital Spy, scarcely great examples of impartial journalism. Fundamentally, we don't really need an entry for this guy in the encyclopedia, and we'd be doing him a favour by removing his name as a search term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the good version of this article (the least you could've done is tag me on this, by the way) and the thing that clinched it for me is that the BBC had written two separate articles on him - one to say that he'd won and one to say that he had received criticism for appearing as he was so rich. This is enough per the WP:GNG, which requires multiple non-trivial appearances of him in multiple articles (as I understand it, at least two different stories); to merge the content with WWTBAM, it would need to be distributed all over the article, which would be inefficient.--Laun chba ller 20:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag you because your talk page says you don't like to receive notifications as it annoys you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reword that because it isn't clear; by that, I'd meant don't put notifications on my talk page. Stick them on the page you want my attention on. Use {{u|Launchballer}}.--Laun chba ller 22:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show). We don't need an entry on everyone who wins a quiz - there's not an entry for every winner of Mastermind (TV series), for instance. This man hasn't done anything of note aside from his WWTBAM victory, and putting a paragraph in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show)#Top prize winners will suffice. As the proposer says, a classic case of WP:BLP1E, with no lasting/international significance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Colapeninsula. Gamaliel (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 13:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge One event. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the TV show. I do not beleive that winning a game show makes a person notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per WP:BLP1E Benboy00 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is 7 non-keeps vs 1 keep consensus? Benboy00 (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't based on numbers, it's based on opinions. As I've said before, the thing that clinched it for me is that the BBC wrote two articles about him; one to say that he'd won and second to say that some people had complained that he'd been allowed on the show.--Laun chba ller 17:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that its not just about numbers, the general opinion certainly points to a merge/delete. I think the proposer is exactly right, in that this is a classic case of WP:BLP1E, and this is exactly the kind of thing that that rule was made for. Each of the three conditions is unquestionably met, and what I think of as the spirit of the rule ("Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article") is being followed here. Maybe if this were a major scandal, and had some sort of tangible effect, then this may not be the case, however neither of those things has happened. Also, perhaps this is a personal opinion, but when it says multiple reliable sources, I dont really think 2 short bbc articles (with identical photos) counts. Benboy00 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point but if you look at the article, there are plenty of other articles about him (albeit about his victory only!) being used as sources.--Laun chba ller 21:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

The consensus seems to be to merge, so I have performed it already. Thoughts?--Laun chba ller 22:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the formatting and added the final question, but other than that it looks fine. This discussion should now be closed by an admin, and the article deleted and turned into a redirect to this page. Benboy00 (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2013 (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) 06:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoei Miyazato[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG since almost all the sources are primary. My search didn't turn up significant independent coverage and the discussion at WT:WPMA#Shoei Miyazato didn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added Reference. Many of the references are not readily available in English. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is a lack of independent coverage. The fact that his instructor might have been notable is WP:NOTINHERITED. The fact that some of his schools are celebrating anniversaries does not show notability, either. His coverage doesn't seem to be independent or significant. Jakejr (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The various schools with anniversaries show a long established organization with thousands of students, one of the criteria listed for notability in martial arts.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on a dojo's 25th anniversary and other articles are just passing mentions, at best. Being in a field for a long time is not sufficient to show notability--any more than a school teacher or plumber is notable for being in a profession for decades. Jakejr (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. Sources don't appear either reliable or don't speak about the subject but rather about someone/something that the subject is attached to. (ie one article is about a school, not him, he's only mentioned in a list of students) Caffeyw (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be a lack of significant independent coverage. There's plenty of sources to show he's been teaching martial arts a long time, but that isn't a condition for notability. The article says he founded a new style, but it has no name--the style given in the infobox is the one he learned. Nothing to support a claim he meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thessalonian Dope Gods[edit]

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

This band fails WP:GNG by a mile. Koala15 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 30. Snotbot t • c » 00:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found these: [16], [17], [18], [19]. It's at the very least borderline. --Michig (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Klub Entertainment[edit]

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

Non notable label created by a single purpose account that fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 30. Snotbot t • c » 00:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article has some problems (promotional language) but the core assertions seem to be verifiable based on Goole Book sources and the label seems to be somewhat significant. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, falling short of WP:CORP. Any appearance of significance, which I do not see, is not supported by sources. The Books link above does little more than verify its existence and does not demonstrate its notability. This article is original research from someone connected to a founder. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2013 (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) 06:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine People[edit]

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

One of a million non-notable companies selling SEO services. LionMans Account (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire.Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a candidate for WP:CSD#A7. Doesn't appear to make any claim of notability at all. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently DGG (talk · contribs) disagreed. Delete. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete the sources might conceivably be sufficient, but it wasn't clear enough for an A7, & I haven't investigated it further. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Salt it once it's dead I just went through all of the citations used in this article to support a claim of notability. To the best of my understanding, this company is one of a self-referencing class of such creatures (California Business Journal, Vatalyst, Cruchbase, etc.) in slick pursuit of recognition for something they are not: notable. The citations often lack authors (what kind of independent writer composes something and gets it "published" but doesn't want their name associated with it?) and as near as I can tell those who do put their name have been paid by the business in question to do so (i.e., chronic COI issues). These businesses are clever in their desire to break into Wikipedia. Crunchbase, which is one of the citations used here, even presents itself as being a wiki-based enterprise that anyone can edit— or at least, it will be one day, but not now: for now, any change you want to make to their database has to be approved by someone, which is so much less effort and expense than letting just anyone edit it. In the end they are all just businesses doing business, and Wikipedia is not a business directory. What especially irks me is the way they do their collective best to convince you otherwise... Not nice, Precioussss. Not nice at all. KDS4444^Talk 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I made similar observations in my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airomo. I don't have time to do that for all these articles (the company that appears to be posting them has several people on its staff). —rybec 22:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we do not normally salt unless an article is repeatedly re-created, and it doesn't work if they use variant titles--some of the people doing this sort of article have figured that out by now. The normal way of dealing with it after an AfD is G4. These articles are a plague, and a danger to WP, but like all dangers are best dealt with calmly and systematically. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article and Airomo do seem similar. In this case, a person wrote an article, put it up for AfC review (which I declined), then made some junk edits to become autoconfirmed, moves the article into mainspace, and finally disappeared. A lot of the same sources are in both articles too. The site vatalyst.com seems to be another PR-only site. LionMans Account (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2013 (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 Flyleaf (album). Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Beerest355 Talk 00:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are about the eponymous Cassie Bernall, not the song. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flyleaf (album); redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 15 August 2013 (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 Last One Picked. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hero (Superchick song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Beerest355 Talk 00:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Notability. Caffeyw (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Last One Picked, the album; redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 15 August 2013 (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 Frankstown Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankstown Township shooting[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Frankstown Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania which already has a paragraph about the killings and a link to this article. Adding a bit more to that section would suffice, don't need to merge it all. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to township. No additional details, other than possibly names are necessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tragic but not notable. Perhpas it is even more tragic that the murder of four people has had virtually no long-term effect. What's yet more astounding has been all the other shootings in this town. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan-E-Kareem (Album)[edit]

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

Non notable album. Article tagged for COI. CSD declined and PROD/AFD recommended. It is "expected" to release in July 2013. When and if it gains notability it may have an article here, just not yet Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article also claims that it will be released in August, and one ref actually has an accessdate for August! The cited article claims it will be released 10 days before Eid. Also, how can a music video be an album?--Auric talk 12:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A reference in the New India Express has been added to the article. However, the album/video/production has not yet been released. Fiddle Faddle 10:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the assessing CSD admin, I thought I should point out that I didn't recommend PROD/AFD (as listed above); If you check my edit summary, you will see that I said "Suggest PROD/AFD/Improve", as one should never forget that the route for a new article isn't always deletion. Stephen! ^Coming... 19:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. If and when it's been out for awhile then it may qualify, but as of now it doesn't. Caffeyw (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Houde[edit]

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

Article that was previously BLP-prodded for lacking any sources whatsoever. Three references have since been added, but two are to his own YouTube videos and the last is to his IMDb profile — meaning there still aren't any reliable sources, but only primary and user-generated ones. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can actually WP:HEY it up to a keepable standard with real references to support a real claim of notability that's more than just "makes YouTube videos and has had minor supporting roles in film and television" — but it's clearly a delete in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability test. Atrian (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
do no delete Do not delete this page. If you follow any of the links you will notice many are his PERSONALLY owned pages and there are bundles of information to pull from those. Everything follows up fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.19.175 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:SPS and WP:BLPPRIMARY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. References are not reliable/credible and/or COI. Caffeyw (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Testdroid[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. The associated references show trivial coverage of product by non-WP:RSes and I can't find any better sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 relevant references. Vvhelppi (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2 new relevant references + link to GitHub. Vvhelppi (talk) 6:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep Added 5 new references to relevant sites. Significant coverage from various reliable sources. Vvhelppi (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although could be a case of "too soon". Almost all the coverage has been in the last year. At first I was suspicious, since Vvhelppi (talk) seems to be a single-purpose account (any disclosed WP:Conflict of interest?). But I did find a fair amount of coverage to at least make an attempt to try to rescue. The article was not in style, since it tended to have inline urls and citations to web sites that did not even mention the subject matter of the article, many self-sourced blog posts, etc. so I removed some of those and added more independent ones. Not very deep but somewhat broad coverage. If consensus is to remove, at least try to userify and try again when the coverage from independent sources is deeper. W Nowicki (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a new reference to relevant site. --85.23.153.170 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC) — 85.23.153.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. Referenced cites include non-reliable and self-published websites. Referenced cites also for most part fail either because the subject is only mentioned in passing/is not the topic or appears to be press releases straight from the company. Caffeyw (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the user who has put in good sources like these, 1, 2, 3, the subject seems to be notable enough. The rest of the sources may not be WP:RS and some are just passing mentions as the user above mentioned. They are excessive and not needed there, only a few of them are reliable enough to actually 'reinforce' its notability. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Existing references are primarily about the parent company raising funds and product catalogue listings. The articles added that focus on the product are mostly trivial. No way can this meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2013 (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. Note that the article has changed significantly since the discussion was opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misir Ali[edit]

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

No redeeming qualities whatsoever. James^x1 2345 19:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gong show 23:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gong show 23:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Gong show 23:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No redeeming qualities whatsoever in the "reason" for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that it has no encyclopaedic value. It isn't even a synopsis, just an unsourced description of a character. James^x1 2345 08:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is essentially spam. Plus, much of it is a word-for-word copyright violation of various websites. AfricaTanz (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References are added and copyvios have been removed.--Zayeem ^(talk) 12:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- That is false. I just removed another word-for-word copyright violation. AfricaTanz (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nice work Zayeem. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this !vote was made before presumed WP:COPYVIO was removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has many new sources added. Another source "Book Review: Humayun Ahmed at his best!" (United News of Bangladesh, Mar. 2, 2008 - Gale Document Number: GALE|A175822989) which is a book review. It says towards the end "Too bad if fans, wanting to be like Misir Ali, decide to pick up the packet [smoking]; maybe Misir Ali should be shown to give up the habit in some future book." I think that you have a character who influences fans is a sign of notability. Another source: "Mourning the death of a legend " (United News of Bangladesh, July 20, 2012 - Gale Document Number: GALE|A331090294), which says; "Humayun Ahmed, 64, was a popular author, playwright and film director who captivated millions of people with his famous characters Himu, Misir Ali, and Baker Bhai in Bangla literature, TV and film over the last three decades." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with appearing close to spam. Plus what is written still appears to be a WP:COPYVIO from what I could search online. Caffeyw (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have removed all the spammy Links from the book names, have re-written the contents of the article, added the real link from Hindustan Times and other references from newspapers of Bangladesh. Sourov0000 (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YTD Video Downloader[edit]

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

This software has only a couple of third party sources, both of them indiscriminate download directories. I've searched, and I can't find anything but more download directories and warez blogs hosting cracked versions of the software. Since it lacks reliable, third party sources, this article does not satisfy either the general notability guideline or the WP:NSOFTWARE guideline on software and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ADVERT in article form, and with YouTube founded in 2005, impossible to have a ten-year old YouTube downloader. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Nate. Written like an advertisement. --kikichugirl ^inquire 03:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like any other article about a freeware program. Example: Freemake Video Downloader is still up and doesn't offer any more valuable sources than this one does.--User:FlyersPh9 ^{02:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)} — FlyersPh9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, the existence of similar or similarly-sourced articles is not considered sufficient justification for keeping an article at Articles for deletion.Dialectric (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made some changes to the article to remove some direct quotes from the referenced articles in order to avoid considering the article an advertisement. Please let me know if there is any other piece of content you consider it should be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian309 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Adrian309 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is leaning towards "delete", considering the SPAs, but I would like to see if there's any comments following the 'improvements'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Reads just like an advertisement, before and after clean-up unfortunately. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's promotional. -- Y not? 17:12, 13 August 2013 (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. WP:CSD#G7 page blanked by author JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gondarowski[edit]

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

Local news article, blog about showing in local library, etc. Not notable. Prod contested based on "world wide contributions". SummerPhD (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was on my way to nom this when you beat me to it. Fails WP:GNG with only local coverage, fails WP:ARTIST outright, obvious COI piece. Dea db eef 00:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 13 August 2013 (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.

^ http://www.thetibcoblog.com/2013/08/14/40-trillion-gigabytes-of-data-by-2020/
^ http://www.theherald.com.au/story/497848/georgeff-at-home-on-international-voyage/
^ http://www.theherald.com.au/story/497848/georgeff-at-home-on-international-voyage/
^ http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-soccer/uwire/020808aaa.html
^ http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=coxatlanta&page=/soc-npsl/news/CZN4126691.htm
^ http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-soccer/uwire/020808aaa.html
^ http://www.theherald.com.au/story/497848/georgeff-at-home-on-international-voyage/
^ http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/houston-dynamo-james-georgeff-in-action-vs-dc-united-nachrichtenfoto/81910071
^ http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/dynamo-open-festival-win-over-tfc
^ http://www.futebolmundial.net/portugal-200809-2adivisao-serie-b
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/d/dagenham_and_redbridge/7289621.stm

[1] ttp://www.thetibcoblog.com/2013/08/14/40-trillion-gigabytes-of-data-by-2020/

[2] ttp://www.theherald.com.au/story/497848/georgeff-at-home-on-international-voyage/

[3] ttp://www.theherald.com.au/story/497848/georgeff-at-home-on-international-voyage/

[4] ttp://www.cstv.com/sports/m-soccer/uwire/020808aaa.html

[5] ttp://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=coxatlanta&page=/soc-npsl/news/CZN4126691.htm

[6] ttp://www.cstv.com/sports/m-soccer/uwire/020808aaa.html

[7] ttp://www.theherald.com.au/story/497848/georgeff-at-home-on-international-voyage/

[8] ttp://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/houston-dynamo-james-georgeff-in-action-vs-dc-united-nachrichtenfoto/81910071

[9] ttp://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/dynamo-open-festival-win-over-tfc

[10] ttp://www.futebolmundial.net/portugal-200809-2adivisao-serie-b

[11] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/d/dagenham_and_redbridge/7289621.stm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]