Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 December	26 December >

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 speedily deleted by User:Kudpung per CSD G4 and salted. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Buddy Holly (David Charles Kramer)[edit]

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

Fails notability standards as subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Gnews and Gbook searches turned up only a few references, all of which were self-created or found in unreliable sources. The one scholarly article cited includes only a passing mention. There just isn't enough around to establish notability. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources to be found that support notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Lack of adequate, independent sourcing. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of (reliable) source, context, and content excluding "References".--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 23:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This might even be speedyable. This article has been deleted in various different formats. I've salted the other two versions of this, which is why this is coming up under this particular rendition. It's been deleted as Buddy Holly (disk jockey) and Dj buddy holly, plus there was an attempt to redirect his DJ name to the Buddy Holly article with DJ Buddy Holly. This needs to stop. I've tagged the user's userpage as a promotional article and as a way to try to get around the deletions in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably also launch an SPI to see if any of the editors for the other pages are socks of the current editor trying to add the page, as it's very suspicious that this account suddenly launched and tried to create an article after the previous attempts were deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This looks to be a sock of User:Djdevious, who created several socks years ago. It also looks like this article was also earlier created at David Charles Kramer and DJ Devious. Yeah... some salting and banning needs to occur here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opened an SPI here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:59, 25 December 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wilkinson (footballer)[edit]

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

Near unreferenced stub. Probably qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD A7 but as RHaworth said on at least one occasion "an article that has survived for four years deserves better than speedy deletion". Laun chba ller 22:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the article as it has a reference and a good one at that. {{Mathgenious989 (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

Keep unless content can't be verified in the listed reference or in any other reliable source, in which case remove the items that can't be verified. If the reference itself can't be shown to exist, remove it and WP:BLPPROD the article. Assuming the playing history is in the reference and the reference is a reliable source and is accurate, the player meets WP:NFOOTY. See the article talk page for more details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the details can be confirmed. Does a publication covering player records from 1888-1939 really include a player who made his debut in 1955? --Michig (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NSPORTS and a source has been found to verify the article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source added by JMorrison230582 verifies pretty well all the content, and Mr Wilkinson's 91 Football League appearances confirm his notability per WP:NFOOTY. I've removed the book source: as mentioned above, a publication covering player records up to 1939 clearly doesn't include a 1955 debutant. Not sure where nominator gets their idea of CSD A7 from: the content describes him as a professional footballer, and the infobox statistics back that up, so that's a pretty clear assertion of notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY sums up everything that is wrong about the football industry; I simply do not understand how kicking a ball around a pitch is an indication of notability. Therefore that left a single sentence stub which thoroughly deserved deletion.--Laun chba ller 11:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same standard (playing in a fully pro league) is applied to other sports too, it's not just something dreamed up for football. Comments like "I simply do not understand how kicking a ball around a pitch is an indication of notability" aren't really very constructive and just make it sound like you have a grudge against football/football articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take the view that anybody can play football, therefore to me it's not an indication of notability. Discussion in reliable sources is. Although I will say this: the article has been expanded 5x since I initiated the deletion discussion. If this article can be expanded to 1,500 characters it would make a good DYK hook.--Laun chba ller 23:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly not just anybody can play football to a professional level, so that's a pretty spurious argument. You could equally claim that anybody can sing therefore being a pop star isn't an indication of notability....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't consider it an indication of notability. Anybody can sing; not everybody can have a chart hit. I'll hold my hands up; I don't like football very much because from where I am in North Cheam to get to Aldi to do my shopping (where stuff is cheapest) I have to get a 93 to Morden and a 157 to Anerley and the 157 goes to Crystal Palace, so I usually have to put up with a bunch of antisocial Crystal Palace supporters. However, per WP:COI I am to leave my biases at the door, so that shouldn't matter.--Laun chba ller 12:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep given that reliable sources now confirm that the subject passes WP:NFOOTY. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject meets the requirements of WP:NSPORTS having played in a "fully professional" league (as listed at WP:FPL). Some evidence of the significant coverage in reliable sources he is presumed to have received would help add to the article. Hack (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep given all the comments above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 28 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Piscitelli[edit]

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

Sad, sad story of victim of molestation, yet the person does not himself appear to have sufficient notability, as far as I can see. The article also appears to be self-promotional (and appears to be likely to be written originally by the subject himself even though it has since had material and references added by others). Delete. (I can see arguments the other way, however.) --Nlu (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like textbook wp:victim to me. And wp:BLP1E Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:VICTIM. Being the first pagan to successfully sue the Catholic church in the USA is interesting but not quite groundbreaking enough to qualify as a major historical event, in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:06, 30 December 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. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Church of India[edit]

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

I'm having trouble finding any indication this denomination has been covered by any kind of independent sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, the title seems common, but the content is just not properly managed. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Thomas Christians. That article discusses the relevant history of Christianity in India. It discusses Oriental Orthodoxy, not Eastern Orthodoxy, which this Church claims to be a part of, but to my knowledge, Orthodoxy does not allow for "lay leaders" to run their sui iuris Churches (the equivalent phrase in Catholicism. I am unsure of the Orthodox equivalent). They claim to be a part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. If this is true, then include it in that Church's article. I am not particularly sure that the Church of India website counts as a verifiable source for this regard. If it is listed in the mother Church's documents, that would merit inclusion on that page, not this page. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Article has no reliable sources. SchreiberBike talk 23:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Canaverys[edit]

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

I do not understand what is the significance of this person. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete wp:A7 No assertion of notability. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:24, 26 December 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 withdrawn by nominator. There are no other valid delete votes at this point and no need to extend this. However, without prejudice as to a possible later nomination if this guy's career does not pan out. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Gardner[edit]

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

~~Subject fails~~ WP:NHOOPS. ~~Only experience is in the NBA Development League. PROD declined by article creator without substantive explanation.~~ Safiel (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner is very well known and is a streetball legend. Also by you logic the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayson_Boucher should be deleted as Grayson never played in the nba. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Owens should be deleted using your logic. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Champion should be deleted using your logic. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corey_Williams_(basketball,_born_1977) should be deleted using your logic. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Howard_(basketball) should be deleted using your logic. Point is many articles fail it but stay up if the players are relevent and noteworthy. Case closed discussion over. (Mathgenious989 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Just a note that other articles existing is not necessarily a reason to keep this one; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Kiwi Gardner " this will prove me right. (Mathgenious989 (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment By the way, removing AfD templates from articles is against policy and will not help your case. Safiel (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way i didnt know that until you flagged me for disruptive edIting. You could have said that before you put that on my wall. (00:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)) {{Mathgenious989 (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. After reading Safiel's comment of 05:31, 27 December 2013 UTC): Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and per "in the grey area approaching WP:GNG where some editors will legitimately think he meets WP:GNG but I don't think I quite makes it" If this person played Division I NCAA basketball there might be enough media coverage that he would qualify under WP:BIO or WP:GNG but if this is the case, it's not reflected in the article as of a few minutes ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Update With the addition of the NPR article, I'm changing to Neutral and if one more reliable source (excluding sources that routinely cover the D-League team he is on, where the coverage is routine for that publication) with significant coverage can be found, I'll likely move to at least "Weak Keep" but he's not there yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if he has appeared as himself in a major motion picture, as Grayson Boucher did, he would likely pass WP:BIO. Aaron Owens is a marginal case - yes, he was in some TV shows but was their release well-known enough to serve as an indicator of notability? That can be discussed on Talk:Aaron Owens. Philip Champion is likewise in that grey area of notability. Corey Williams (basketball, born 1977) and Ron Howard (basketball) both pass WP:NHOOPS by virtue of the leagues they played in. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kiwi played Division 1 basketball at providence and I added that to the article. Kiwi was also one of THE most highly recruited prospects coming out of high school. Kiwi also received attention for his short stature which was found to be inspirational . He also appeared in mixtapes . (Mathgenious989 (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Since no one is answering on the debate the page will stay up. (Mathgenious989 (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Not your decision to make. Safiel (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has no assertion of notability. As such i is a candidate for speedy deletion under wp:A7 - but I'm debating whether it would count as wp:BITE to do so. For the record spamming an AfD with comments that barely indicate notability isn't likely to get you very far. Delete at a minimum. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kiwi plays in the nba d league and he was a STAR in college. and it would violiate BITE if you did that. (Mathgenious989 (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment Just a note that it's a stretch to say that the page meets the A7 standards for speedy deletion. A7's standards aren't notability, it's lower than that - it's if there is any claim of importance. The claim that a person played for an NBA division and is well-known for their playing abilities established importance for the sake of A7 criteria. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He may not satisfy WP:NHOOPS but he passes WP:GNG, which trumps all other specific-genre notability guidelines. Dime Magazine's "Kiwi Gardner Desolates The San Francisco Pro-Am" (9/14/2012), Santa Cruz Sentinel's D-League Basketball: Kiwi Gardner leads Santa Cruz Warriors in comeback victory over Bakersfield Jam (12/12/2013), D-League Digest's Oakland Native And YouTube Sensation Kiwi Gardner Is Ready For Training Camp With The Santa Cruz Warriors (11/6/2013), SB Nation's Mikki Moore, Kiwi Gardner and the joys of watching the D-League (11/27/2013), and Mashable's A YouTube Legend Battles for his Basketball Future (2013). Jrcla2 (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Borderline at best for WP:GNG. Media sources appear to be of a purely local nature. The other sources are league or club related. I should note that the subject went undrafted in the main NBA draft. And something that has not been said. IF this guy can charm his way onto a main NBA team and play in exactly ONE game at the main NBA level, he immediately becomes notable under WP:NHOOPS and automatically gets his article. But right now he fails WP:NHOOPS and can pass WP:GNG only under a very loose interpretation of that policy. Why not wait and see if this guy actually makes it to an NBA club and plays, at which point notability is automatic. This article is simply premature. Safiel (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Jrcla2, at last, an attempt to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Unfortunately, as Safiel points out, these press mentions are in many cases local or put out by the league. The Dime Magazine is probably the closest thing to a reasonable source, but the fact that its specialty include covering the D-League weakens the claim, in much the same way that a hypothetical magazine that covered every Junior College basketball game would not be suitable for saying that every Junior College basketball player met WP:GNG just because each and every one of them received significant coverage in a specialty publication. If Sam Laird's Mashable piece was about someone outside his local area or if he was a "national reporter" then his article, which provides significant coverage, would carry much more weight than it does. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Truth be told, if this gets deleted, not a big deal. I have a feeling Kiwi Gardner will get more press (sooner than later) and, when appropriate, his article can get created. If the closing admin feels the sources I've provided pass GNG threshold, then obviously I'll be happy with that decision as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - per WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Looking online and at the sources Jrcla2 kindly posted, there is indeed independent coverage, but it's pretty loose (being primarily local and/or "bloggy" in nature). Not that it's the most relevant, but as a comparison and standard, many other NBA D-league players in a similar stature have further notability established through either playing in other notable leagues, and/or having an acting career. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Weak Keep per introduction of NPR interview below - combined with the multiple local news sources, notability is fairly established. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep gardner has notabilty and appeared in dime magazine. (Mathgenious989 (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Having appeared in Dime Magazine does help with notability but by itself does not establish it, per WP:ONESOURCE. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to Jrcla2's sources, Kiwi Gardner has been profiled by NPR's Morning Edition, which definitely counts as WP:RS. Oddly, although the piece and the listing for it on NPR's web site says that is a follow-up piece to an earlier October profile, I can't locate the earlier one on NPR's website. Regardless, at four minutes on NPR's anchor program, it counts as "significant coverage." --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, two or in some cases more reliable sources providing significant coverage which are independent of each other are needed to "nail down" notability. Other editors may be satisfied with just a single source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The December 31 NPR interview is likely a major change to his notability in the minds of many. Therefore, I recommend that any administrator considering closing this as "delete" re-list the discussion instead, so that whatever consensus forms is formed in light of this new development. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baulines Craft Guild. If anything from the current content is worth merging into Baulines Craft Guild, it can be easily retrieved from the history. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Grae[edit]

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

Is this artist sufficiently notable? Not that I am able to discern, although I admit that this is not an area that I have a great deal of knowledge in. Unless notability is established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Baulines Craft Guild No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 26 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rakudo Perl 6[edit]

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

Not notable. The refs are first party or very narrow specialist (perl) ones; no computing ones, never mind non-specialist ones. The only ones with any depth are promotional, written by the creators. A search turns up nothing better. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added refs to notable sources from outside the perl6 community. ReiniUrban (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- one of those is just a link to and summary of the announcement. The other is a long interview with only one question on Rakudo, and is still on a Perl related site, of the publisher of the Camel book after which this seems to be named.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about this entry on fedoraproject.org? --Grondilu (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no requirement in either verifiability WP:V or reliable sources WP:RS policies for sources to be "non-specialist". The criterion for notability merely requires multiple, in-depth reliable sources independent of the Rakudo's creators and major contributors. The Linux today article and O'Reilly interview cited in the article qualify as independent RS. In particular, O'Reilly publishes book on many computer topics, but none on Rakudo that I know of, so independence in the sense of no financial conflict of interest is satisfied here. There are also an SD Times article and an interview with one of the Rakudo architects. These four sources are enough to pass WP:GNG notability guidelines. The article itself could use better sourcing, but has no insurmountable issues, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quit being a stickler ActionScript/VB user, JohnBlackburne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitasc (talk • contribs) 02:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — Bitasc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. The nomination was not transcluded and no template was posted on the article. In the meantime Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run Sheldon (2nd nomination)‎ was opened which supersedes this discussion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Run Sheldon[edit]

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

This article:

fails to explain its importance to the industry (Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry)
is inappropriate content (non-notable articles and spinouts, detailed instructions)

It belongs to another Wiki (e.g. iosgaming.wikia.com).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Willkey77 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 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 December 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A second nomination has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run Sheldon (2nd nomination) by mistake because the AfD template was missing from the article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:10, 28 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weblink Browser[edit]

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

Unsourced promotional article about a new web browser. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 16:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As I noted on the article Talk page, there have been previous speedy-deletions of articles about this browser, but under the name "YRC Weblink", which may serve as an alternative search terms. However, under neither name am I finding anything substantial, merely download site links, so I don't see this as meeting WP:NSOFT notability. AllyD (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability. A search for 'YRC Weblink', the software's full name, turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:55, 27 December 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). Peridon (talk)

Jitendra Gahlod[edit]

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

Biography (autobiography) of a non-notable person. Claims of notability amount to being the vice president of the state-level branch of a student political union, and being a member of the BJP. No indications of ever having stood for election, no less having won such an election. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any evidence online of notability (offline sources may provide more but I'll leave that up to the author of the article to dig up). The sole reference given does not even mention the name. -- œ ^™ 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails on WP:GNG, A7 candidate. Using Wikipedia for Promotion. Irrelevant references given. Hitro talk 17:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I have tagged it for Speedy. I dont think it passes basic criteria. Hitro talk 17:54, 25 December 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) 00:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aum Sync[edit]

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

I find no evidence of notability for this musician. The record label itself doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:29, 18 December 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO; very little independent coverage. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see that he verifiably meets any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I cannot find sources to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 31 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Anderson (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. It should be noted that his co-host on the Discovery channel mention was deleted after an AfD debate recently for much the same reason. Doug Anderson was part of a larger AfD debate two years ago and was kept via No consensus since there was too many to make a clear decision.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this guy is notable and no references either except for those external links which would not be enough to reach the notability guidelines, so therefore this guy is not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter and lacks the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 18:10, 29 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Benchmark (brothel)[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. article tries to base notability on coverage on opposition to this brothel. But this is rather WP:ROUTINE. Most new large brothels are opposed by the community and local government in Australia and this one doesn't seem the exception. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it's probably somewhat notable for its place in the history of illegal brothel development in NSW and Australia in general and one might argue that its approval (which the article suggests played a role in the resignation of a mayor) might be partially notable as an WP:EVENT. However, there's no evidence (that I could find) to suggest that its establishment was particular iconic or "breakthrough" or (in other words) notable and the nominator's suggestion that such opposition is routine seems accurate. Stalwart111 02:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local opposition to this sort of development is hardly notable or unique. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:29, 28 December 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 Paris By Night. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris By Night 106[edit]

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

This is part of a series of articles about individual episodes of a Vietnamese TV show, Paris By Night. As with most of these articles, it includes no reliable third-party sources and likely fails WP:GNG. eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a List of Paris By Night episodes article that can be redirected to? If not, it should be redirected to the parent article, as individual episodes aren't usually notably, unless the show you are talking about is called The Simpsons. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. And let's make this a precedent for the entire series afterwards. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:20, 24 December 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, Sandstein 11:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paris By Night, assuming that it is common practice to refer to each individual episode of this series by number. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:08, 30 December 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) 01:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teens Encounter Christ[edit]

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

Zero evidence for notability. But it was accepted out of AfC desptre the lack of independent references DGG ( talk ) 11:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is a surprising lack of third-party coverage of this organisation given how geographically widespread it claims to be. Was not able to find anything to indicate that the organisation meets WP:ORG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:11, 30 December 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) 11:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arndrea Waters[edit]

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

The notability of this person seems to hinge on inheritance from Martin Luther King. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has a reference proving she exists but notability is not inherited. Fails WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even as the person who started the article, I must say that it was difficult for me to follow up with anything to keep it. Admit-ably, I saw the red link on Martin Luther King III's article and assumed that it was something supposed to be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsonjustin (talk • contribs) 15:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above, the only claim to notability that I can see is being related to someone famous, and WP:INHERIT covers that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:09, 30 December 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 Oak View, Norwood, Massachusetts. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OakView Preservation Incorporated[edit]

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

Delete or merge to Oak View, Norwood, Massachusetts. Not notable in its own right. Boleyn (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: per nom, either way. The subject article has been tagged for over five years, has no press beyond press releases, the top links are all primary websites, blogs, Facebook pages and the like. One would think that if this preservation effort had any traction, there'd have been some movement over the years; in any event, Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle for would-be preservationists. Ravenswing 09:58, 26 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soundgenerator.com[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Claims large number of visitors (unreferenced) but seems to be a non-notable website. Boleyn (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not provide and I cannot find evidence for notibility. The website that bought them out and incorporated them does not itself have an article, not does it look like it should--Alexa gives current site rank of >2.6 million. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage or any other indication of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Me Up Music[edit]

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

Xouldn't establish that this is a WP:NOTABLE company. Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - A search revealed mostly music videos for a song called "Wake Up", but narrowing it down gave me this. It's either a blog or a news report, but it's at the moment the only reliable coverage I can find (the rest were actual, non-reliable blogs). Since Singapore's primary language is English, since most of their bands aren't notable enough for their own article, and since I couldn't find more sources, it pains me to say that the label hasn't been covered enough in reliable sources. It is interesting to note however, that to my knowledge, coverage for indie music is usually difficult to find because of their nature, so that could be a factor to the lack of sources, and not because the label itself is not "prominent" enough. If someone else finds sources I've missed, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources. This wouldn't necessarily cause me to call for deletion, as there are many record labels which I consider inherently notable for which sources are very difficult to find as Narutolovehinata5 points out. However, seven releases, with only one EP release by a notable band, does not seem notable. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, typically artist managers and the like aren't considered notable except at the very pinnacle of the field (think Brian Epstein). I can't see any source that indicates this would meet WP:CORP either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:21, 30 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Knives Records[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The silence where there should be noise is deafening. Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely any claim of significance. No coverage found in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Leyva[edit]

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

Not yet notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, as a producer, model or actor. She claims to have been involved in the distribution of a successful film, but the reference given doesn't mention her, and I can't find anything online about her as a film producer in secondary sources. There's a photo of her in the article showing her posing with Jack Black, but that doesn't mean they have a working relationship: my brother-in-law got his photo taken posing with James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich, and that does not make him notable in the rock music industry. She had a brief mention as #36 in a 2012 People magazine poll of beautiful women, which doesn't make her notable as a model. She was an extra in one episode of a television show, according to IMDB, which doesn't make her notable as an actor. Her work in film funding and speaking at schools about filmmaking is referenced only by primary sources, and I can't find any secondary coverage of it online. Ruby Murray 09:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent reliable sources.- Mr X 19:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources in the article offer significant independent coverage, and I found nothing else that does. --Michig (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Nicholson[edit]

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

No notable artistic productions,or at least no references to show them notable. As books, they have holdings in the mid 20s for the various titles, No awards, just nominations. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable I guess. Those eight references are poorly referenced. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article substantially conforms to WP: ARTIST. This is a CV. Self-promotion. --gilgongo (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage found here, but not enough to support an article. --Michig (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David St. James[edit]

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

May fail WP:ACTOR SarahStierch (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 December 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) 09:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The demise of Google News Archives as a usable interface for notability searches makes it much harder than it used to be to dig for reliable source coverage in cases like this. It's possible that somewhere out there exist some biographical articles about this much-credited actor, but nothing has been supplied and I couldn't find any, other than some reviews of small-theater stage productions of the sort that are included on his website. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:41, 26 December 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) 00:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherin Suzhikova[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT simply being an industry counsellor is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at this point no indications of notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 25 December 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) 09:31, 25 December 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nitipong Selanon[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested with a claim that the article meets WP:GNG, but without explanation as to why. The sources listed in the article are routine sports journalism, which is insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, numerous sources exist for each of these very short stubs meeting GNG. These are sport stars and are reported as such. I could see creating a list of the relevant athletes as an article until each one grows beyond a stub stage but that seems unneeded if stubs are ok. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there seems to be a degree of routine reporting in the sources provided as some seem to be match reports, but there also seems to be some that could be more in depth. I would appreciate the input from a Thai speaker for clarity. Fenix down (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - WP:BOMBARD applies here, I don't see enough from the heap of sources added to the end of these stubs to be confident in notability. Giant Snowman 12:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both – no evidence or reasoning that either article meets the general notability guideline. C 679 17:58, 14 December 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) 19:37, 18 December 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) 09:30, 25 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NewGen PhotoLab[edit]

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

An article on a piece of software described as being under development for 2014 release. User:Trivialist previously placed a Prod notice with the rationale "Ad for unreleased software, no assertion of notability" but the notice was removed without comment or improvement by the WP:SPA author. So here we are at AfD, on the grounds that I too can find no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. No other indication of notability. --Michig (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyzer Startup Commune[edit]

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

The only cited source is a press release. On Google and Google News searches, I can't find any independent sources that significantly cover the organization. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability for the organization; a number of sources have been added to the article since the deletion nomination, but they only verify the existence or credentials of the people involved. The only sources that address the organization are a press release and the organization's website, neither of which confers notability. Similarly, all I'm able to turn up in a google search is more press releases and the occasional vanity page by the same person who created the article here (who also appears to be a participant in Catalyzer's business). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found that would indicate suitability for an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep.SK 1 as nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't have any importance but being DLC for a popular game Tractor Tyres (talk) 01:10, 25 December 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 December 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Notability and WP:GNG is satisfied with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, already included in the article. Being DLC isn't a valid deletion argument and we do not measure "importance" this way. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:08, 25 December 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) 23:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has been reviewed by several reliable sources anf so far the only rational for deletion is that it is DLC. Also, even if it was nof reviewed the first step should have been to merge or redirect to the main article.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has received plenty of coverage, and the parent article, Skyrim, is rather large, so it seems like a legitimate split. I'd say the article's existence is warranted per the WP:GNG and WP:TOOBIG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: This article definitely meets the criteria. I was meaning to nominate Hearthfire, but upon thinking about it I believe that it is notable enough. Tractor Tyres (talk) 19:34, 26 December 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. (non-admin closure) ///EuroCarGT 19:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto blackout (2013)[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. It's winter, a blackout happened. What's notable about that? ...William 04:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions....William 04:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 04:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS sums it up. Ish dar ian 04:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the "Impact section" on a new Wiki page about the ice storm in general The blackout isn't notable per se. However, the ice storm that hit was a noteworthy event, similar to North American Ice Storm of 1998. Messiisking (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mentioned this article should be moved/merged into the .2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm Krazytea(talk) 02:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm is a stub and it should have a section impact on cities and that section should have subsections each of which is the title of a city that was devistated by the ice storm. The article Toronto blackout (2013) should turn into one of the subsection of the other article with its title being renamed Toronto and turning into a level 3 heading and it's level 2 headings turning into level 4 headings of the other article. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with history - Merge with history along with 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm into 2013 North American cold wave. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The storm as a whole was certainly notable (affecting several US states and Canadian provinces), and this certainly warrants mention as an aspect of the larger topic. But this one individual aftereffect does not require its own separate article. Merge into a subsection of the main article. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge It has been suggested that Toronto blackout (2013) be merged into 2013 North American cold wave but it has also been suggested that 2013 North American cold wave be merged into 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm. Thus all 3 of those articles should be merged together. Blackbombchu (talk) 20:53, 27 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meenush[edit]

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

A CSD was declined as having a non-applicable criterion. However, apart from something about Menush on Twitter, this article does not return any other sources. It can't be allowed to languish indefinitely with a maintenance tag, so the community is asked to decide whether to keep it or delete it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a hoax. Can't find anything online about any Hindu deity with this name, or in several variant spellings. Ruby Murray 11:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the poor quality of even some of the well-intentioned writing on Wikipedia, it's hard to tell the difference between an article about a real thing that is so badly written that it looks like rubbish (witness Al (folklore) (AfD discussion)) and a hoax article written by an editor, including the names of xyr schoolfriends/relatives, who blanks it after six months when the joke has worn thin. A search for sources turning up nothing indicates that this article is in the latter category. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 28 December 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.

Aqua omnium florum[edit]

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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominating for deletion per WP:NOT. This entry is largely drawn from a public domain dictionary, and reads like a dictionary definition. Google returns mainly links that link here or provide a definition that is nearly identical, suggesting that it would be difficult to expand this to be an encyclopedic entry. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominated version was not actually taken from other works. That draft seems to have been mostly guesswork which was quite mistaken in supposing it to be a garden fertiliser — one might almost call it "bullshit" :). I have rewritten the page. Andrew (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Thank you for the rewrite. I couldn't find any sources on it, but the version you just rewrote looks great. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 25 December 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. There is apparently nothing to merge, and everybody agrees there is no independent notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Clemmons[edit]

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

Based on talk page, apparently PRODded in 2007 and not deleted at that time after being fixed up. However, it still seems to me that this person does not have any kind of independent notability. Delete. (An alternative is to merge and redirect to Death of Marilyn Monroe.) --Nlu (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Death of Marilyn Monroe per WP:BIO1E. I agree he has no independent notability. Sideways713 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He was a police officer who thought Monroe was murdered. That is certainly worthy of a mention in Death of Marilyn Monroe, but not a separate article since the man is otherwise utterly without note. --gilgongo (talk) 17:00, 28 December 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) 10:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hillgrove[edit]

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

Despite this subject's attempt to apparently seek publicity, he is relatively unknown, thus this becomes a violation of BLPCRIME, as this article is mostly about the subjects tax issues. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article not just about the criminal case against Hillgrove. He has received extensive coverage of his (alleged) role in the Nigella Lawson case in UK national newspapers and numerous other sources. Article content well supported by reliable sources such as The Telegraph and Press Gazette who thought him important enough to write an article about. Subject has widely publicised the court case against himself and article makes it clear that he has not been convicted. As a self-publicist, subject has chosen to be in the public eye:

http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/business/dragons-den-pr-blasts-nazi-hmrcs-slaughter-of-innocents-in-tax-battle/5801.article
http://www.thebiponline.co.uk/bip/dragons-den-pr-guru-fights-wrongful-accusation-of-tax-evasion/
http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/news/10511/dragons-den-pr-guru-to-sue-hmrc-for-wrongful-arrest/

Tensesloan (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because event X is notable, does not make every participant who may be involved in X notable. Just because the subject has chosen to be in the public eye, doesn't mean we need to have an article about him. While it's not a litmus test, if after reading the lead of an article it doesn't strike me as noteworthy, it usually is because it isn't. Just my musings.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of any significant independent notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find multiple articles in national media about him persuasive? Tensesloan (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Merely being mentioned in the news is not equivalent to notability. Fails GNG, SIGCOV and NOTNEWS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nice hat, but the article seems to just be an excuse to criticise the subject. Not appropriate for a BLP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment There are now eleven references in the article, nine of which are for articles directly about Hillgrove, one to his own blog and one to an article in The Telegraph that provides background. Inevitably he will be mentioned in connection with famous people as his job is PR, it doesn't diminish his independent notability which I believe the references demonstrate. Sorry if it is all a bit negative, that's just how it worked out. Please add content that reflects well on Hillgrove if you can find any. I couldn't find much apart from his awards in New Zealand. Tensesloan (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per NOTNEWS. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added 2006 and 2007 info and references from The Times and The Independent. Subject is notable in his own right. Tensesloan (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is his notability is all derivative from the people he worked/works for. So far he has not had a "Kato Kaelin" moment.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good PR man would be invisible for exactly that reason but Hillgrove seeks the limelight and I believe he has become notable in his own right. The articles included in the references focus on his personal actions, not those of his clients, though inevitably the clients are a part of the story. I refer you to references 2 to 10 and 12 to 14 (as at the time of posting this message) which are about Hillgrove directly. Tensesloan (talk) 20:42, 31 December 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. The relevant guidelines & policy cited here are WP:MLB/N, WP:GNG & WP:V. As discussed by a number of editor in this discussion, subject-specific guidelines only provide a presumption of notability, it does not replace the need for the article subject to actually meet the standard of GNG. Keep arguments have failed to address this. A deletion here does not preclude the creation of short, stub-length bio as a section within an article on for example on all players from the era where like-wise little information is known. KTC (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page name was redirected to List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names on February 23, 2014. Kraxler (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smith (baseball)[edit]

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

Too obscure for a page, a lack of details makes this feel incomplete. If we dont even know his first name he is probably NN. Beerest 2 talk 01:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Played in the Union Association, which is a major league. The fact that his first name is unknown at this point does not make him any less notable that the thousands of other major league players. Penale52 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Snow~~ keep Pases Base/n, we've gone through these discussions countless times. Consensus is clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)'[reply]
- Clearly I was wrong to say "snow"... – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per previous agreements that these players are considered notable for having played at least one game in one of several "Major" leagues.Neonblak ^talk - 22:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only sources for this subject are stat sites. If you can argue that this is enough to pass WP:GNG, then all minor leaguers should also be considered notable since they are all found on these same exact websites with just as much if not more significant coverage. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Union Association was a "major league". He played in the UA in 1884, and it is unfair to require sources from that era be accessible online. That's why the UA is included in BASE/N. Your equivalency of a player from 130 years ago to a minor leaguer now is a false one. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not requiring anything. WP:GNG (which overrides BASE/N) requires that a "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". I did not say anything about these sources being only accessible online. That would be a rather limiting requirement. The fact that baseball researchers have not even found a first name for this person in 130 years of print and online research would seem to indicate that this person has never "received significant coverage in reliable sources" and therefore fails the primary standard of GNG and that the assumption that everyone who has ever played major league baseball would pass GNG is an assumption without merit. Kinston eagle (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - See my comment below about the UA Secret ^account 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for christ sakes delete Lets use common sense and do what the football/soccer and ice hockey Wikiproject does in those cases. This obviously fails WP:GNG and probably WP:V as well as we can't really trust those box scores as it could easily be a pseudonym of a former professional player or many other scenarios. Smith is a very common name back then and his information is impossible to verify. Those two Wikiprojects usually vote to delete articles of players that technically meets WP:ATHLETE (barely as there is controversy among baseball historians, particularly Bill James, whether the Union Association can be classified as official Major League) but easily fails WP:GNG and is unlikely to ever meet it, like in this case. Kinston eagle also brings a strong point with his rationale. Secret ^account 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable only if the information can be properly verified, which it can't because his first name isn't known. Nick (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's understandable why some editors might think that a sketchy bit of info like this one doesn't warrant an article. But hard cases make bad law, and it would be encyclopedic malpractice to deliberately create a gap in the coverage of a subject. In other words, this information has to go somewhere as part of our complete coverage of the Union Association. By long consensus, this has been accomplished by having an article for every player. If someone wants to propose a consolidated list article to merge and redirect information about players for whom there's little information, that could be a reasonable alternative. Deletion, on the other hand, is not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I think I would be fine with a seperate page for MLB players that have very little about them known, like only their last names, and there is quite a few from the 1870s and 1880s. Penale52 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am fine with merging into your proposed consolidated list article similar to what we have for minor league players who do not meet GNG. Do we have a consensus on this? Kinston eagle (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is a list to get us started. These are all single-named ballplayers who have articles on wikipedia: Boland (baseball), Booth (baseball), Edwards (baseball), Eland (baseball), Evans (baseball), Franklin (baseball), Gavern (baseball), Gilroy (baseball), Hellings (baseball), Higby (baseball), Jones (left fielder), Jones (third baseman), Larkin (baseball), Leonard (baseball), Lewis (baseball), Long (baseball), Macey (baseball), McBride (baseball), McCloskey (baseball), McDoolan (baseball), McGuire (baseball), McRemer (baseball), Murphy (baseball), O'Rourke (baseball), Quinlan (baseball), Quinn (baseball), Scott (baseball), Shaffer (baseball), Sheridan (baseball), Smith (baseball), Spencer (baseball), Stafford (baseball), Sterling (baseball), Stoddard (baseball), Sullivan (baseball), Sweigert, Wills (baseball), Wood (baseball). Kinston eagle (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.. Going with past consensus, but i'm unsure on this one.. Normally I'd say to keep all MLB players.. but I have always been unsure of these unknown name guys from the 19th century.. It's hard to argue that we have substantial sources that go into depth on this guy, considering we don't even know his first name and "Smith" is such a common surname. I don't know if a list article is a good idea though... Perhaps since these guys usually only played for one team the articles can be redirected to the appropriate season articles? Spanneraol (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I feel that including sportspeople who have competed at the highest level is a good rule of thumb, there are exceptions where common sense indicates otherwise and I think this is one. --Michig (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep It makes no sense for Wikipedia to have pages for 99.9% of major league baseball players and no page for the last 0.1%. All this would do is yield confusion and the inevitable re-creation of the missing pages by people who read BASE/N and see that such players are presumed to be notable. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont try for a snow keep, its ridiculous to say that, especially since there is just as much "delete" as there is "keep". Beerest 2 talk 19:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody would read BASE/N and see that such players are presumed to be notable since BASE/N is not a valid policy and will most likely be changed to reflect the results of this discussion. Obviously, none of these one named players meet GNG and most never will. The idea that 99.9% of the articles on wikipedia are required to meet GNG but these should be exempt because the subjects played Major League Baseball is what makes no sense. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Again, it makes no sense to have a Wikipedia page for 99.9% of major league players and none for the other 0.1%. Your argument is little more than silly AfD lawyering. Also, it's highly unlikely that a longstanding part of BASE/N will be changed because of an AfD in which five or 10 people participate. That would be even dumber than deleting these pages you want deleted. (Also, to the other guy above, I said "Snow Keep" to emphasize how silly I believe this AfD to be.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It won't be changed because it was never meant to catch 100% of cases. It was only intended to apply almost all players. It explains this at the top of NSPORTS. Meeting it may mean you are still deleted and not meeting it may mean you still get an article. It's just a guide to help you quickly decide as a rule of thumb. -DJSasso (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only available information is a surname "Smith" and a statistical record that someone who may or may not have had that surname (given frequent use of pseudonyms in the early years of baseball) played for six innings in one baseball game. No secondary coverage. Article lacks even the most basic biographical information such as name, dates of birth and death, etc. A list of such players could be appropriate but not a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think a little bit of common sense is needed here; we don't even know this person's name so how can we write a verifiable article about them? Maybe some of the sourced stats could be merged to a List of unknown MLB players or somesuch where details of players like this could be kept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete but mention the data in an appropriately aggregated form elsewhere, and redirect there. Given that we know nothing of this man but his last name and a few statistics about his games, he fails WP:GNG by light-years. The fact of his existence and his performance probably bears recording in Wikipedia, although not in an article but in a list of some sort. Sandstein 14:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified WP:BASEBALL with this edit. If the consensus is not to keep, it's important to use this discussion to decide what to do with the information on this page, especially as it relates to all of the similar pages listed by Kinston eagle above. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge into something like List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. These players should be included in Wikipedia per WP:BASE/N, criterion two, which states a player is notable if he "[has] appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball..."; players without given names are thus notable, though lacking a full name. A list would satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, while a stand-alone article seems to go against our general notability guideline as mentioned above, as sources for a surname only are undoubtedly obscure and possibly nonexistent. Listing these players seems to be a sensible compromise. Seattle (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Not that it necessarily matters, but Kinston Eagle is the only user voting Delete whose name I recognize from prior baseball-related AfD discussions. A lot of people on this site have a slavish devotion to policies and generally enjoy the online lawyering related thereto, but it makes no sense for Wikipedia to have an article for 15,000+ major league baseball players and then no page for ~30 players whose full biographical information is heretofore unknown. The proposed deletion of this page and some others will create bigger problems (confusion, the re-creation of said pages, red links on some old roster pages and/or templates, etc.) than the deletions purport to solve. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete remember WP:BASEBALL/N only presumes notability. It doesn't guarantee it. If you can't find even his first name then likely the sources don't exist to pass WP:GNG otherwise his name would be known. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though somewhat reluctantly. Without knowing the full name, there's just not enough to ensure verifiability. The idea of a list of such players is a solid one though, and so a merge to such a list is viable, but there's just not enough verifiable information for a stand alone article. oknazevad (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Questioning the presumption of notability of WP:BASEBALL/N for this specific player whose biographical information (first name, date of birth, birthplace, etc) is not known, and the only identified reference to date is a stat website. This article can never grow without the risk of using random articles about a person named "Smith" to build Frankenstein. The player is already included in WP in some lists of baseball players, which is probably the extent to which he should be WP:PRESERVED.—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
????? This was leaning Keep until yesterday, and now six Delete votes have come out of the woodwork, only one of which is from someone who has been active in baseball-related AfD discussions in the recent past. Are people being recruited to this AfD? If not, why so much action on this AfD and so little on the other pending baseball AfDs? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Djsasso and Bagumba are very involved in editing baseball articles. Even if you don't "recognize" the names of other editors, that doesn't matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves eight (out of 11) Delete votes from people who never participate in baseball-related AfD discussions, including a flurry of late Delete votes. Seems odd. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, Wikipedia gives greater weight to community consensus over WikiProject consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and acknowledged above, if not directly. The question at hand is whether people are being recruited to this AfD. If not, from where are they coming? Seems awfully strange that a bunch of people with no prior interest in baseball all showed up in this AfD, when other pending baseball AfDs have no more than two responses. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where they are coming from is the notice that was placed on the baseball wikiproject. What you are seeing is baseball editors that were notified about the discussion now showing up and weighing in. All completely normal and legitimate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those notices go out on every baseball-related AfD, but most of them struggle to get a half-dozen replies. And as I mentioned earlier, I've never seen most of these names in a baseball AfD before. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hang on. Up until this AfD, you've made all of a dozen Wikipedia edits in the last half a year. If we're going to ask such questions, were you recruited to this AfD? (Heck, according to your contribution list, you've only participated in a dozen AfDs ever before this week. I expect many of us have never seen your name in an AfD before, myself included.) Ravenswing 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with both of your names and most of the other people in this discussion as well...People can have differing opinions without it being some kind of nefarious thing.Spanneraol (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously? The guy played in a MLB game. There should be absolutely no question about notability here.--Yankees10 18:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until NSPORTS is reworded from "presumed to be notable" to "guaranteed to be notable", nothing is automatic.—Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what "presumed notable" means. Per BASE/N, sources aren't even a requirement for people who are presumed notable. Sources are to establish notability for those who aren't presumed to be notable. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed notable means that we presume they are notable because for some cases sources might be hard to find. ie in old news papers instead of online. However, when questioned those sources do need to be found. RIght from the BASE/N "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". I think you have a serious misunderstanding of how any of the SNGs work. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and failing any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be deleted. This whole thing is silly lawyering by people who apparently have nothing better to do. ("Woo-hoo! Wikipedia no longer has a page for every major league baseball player, because we successfully argued a loophole!") - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia requires significant coverage of a subject in reliable sources for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This article fails to meet that standard, as it appears there is probably no information on him anywhere save for a box score in 1884 (and perhaps an official scorer's book) that indicated he played in a single game in the 1884 season in a league that some modern scholars (notably Bill James) now argue should not be considered a Major League at all (though Major League Baseball does officially recognize it as one). Certainly the verifiable information we have about this player should be included on wikipedia somewhere, but that is different than devoting an article to this player. This article can never be more than a stub and it clearly fails notability guidelines. If the baseball wikiproject has a guideline that conflicts with general wikipedia policy, then it should be rewritten. Indrian (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Wikipedia doesn't require sources at all for people who are presumed notable, as this guy is due to having played at least one game in a major baseball league. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are wrong, right at the top of WP:NSPORTS it says "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". It can still be deleted if no sources can be found. All articles are required to be referenceable. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, which is the core notability guideline of wikipedia and therefore supersedes the baseball guidelines, requires all subjects to exhibit significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, the baseball guidelines themselves only give a "presumption" of notability to Major League Baseball Players, which is different from automatically conferring notability on such a player. A presumption is a starting point for an argument, not an end point, so really the baseball guideline does not contradict the general guideline at all. Indrian (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above players are referenced in dozens of baseball-related books, databases, etc. They're just not referenced to the satisfaction of you and some others. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. You mean that they're not referenced to the satisfaction of the GNG. The GNG requires that qualifying sources discuss the subject in "significant detail" and sets forth the requirements for the same. I understand that being an inexperienced editor you might not have come across the GNG before, and recommend you give it a looksee; the NSPORTS criteria are explicitly subordinate to the GNG. Ravenswing 21:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, his stats are referenced in those places. There is no biographical information referenced anywhere save for his last name, hence the complete failure of this article to satisfy the notability guideline. Indrian (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note A very reasonable compromise was proposed to make a list page for these players. I and several of the deletion minded editors have agreed to this alternative. As did Penale52 who created nearly every single one of these single name baseball articles. Some of the keep people have also indicated their reluctant willingness to accept a list. Can we at least agree on a consensus for a list and a merger of all these players to that list as a compromise to full deletion? Kinston eagle (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A list makes more sense than deleting them outright, but why redirect all of these names to a list when we could just keep the pages? This whole thing is the height of Wikipedia silliness. Wikipedia isn't running out of room, but you wouldn't know it the way some of the people above are talking. It's downright idiotic to have pages for 15,000 or 20,000 major league players and no page for the last 20 or 30 players whose biographical information is scarce. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than him technically passing WP:ATHLETE. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing ATHLETE is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, amongst others. Yes, those are all soccer-related AFDs, but the point is there - GNG is more important than the SNG. Giant Snowman 20:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list article or delete - There has been pretty consistent consensus in AfD after AfD not to delete baseball players with one major league game, due to presumed notability under WP:BASEBALL/N. And I have always agreed with that, since a player who has played at the major league level has virtually assuredly received significant coverage in course of his climb to the major leagues, if not his major league career itself. And the presumed notability under WP:BASEBALL/N is particularly important with 19th century or early 20th century players, where difficulty finding sources is almost certainly more the result of sources being lost over time or not converted to internet-friendly format, as opposed to never existing (notability is not temporary). But I have always been open to the possibility that there may be cases where the presumed notability under WP:BASEBALL/N cannot be sustained, and I think this is one of those cases. Indeed, if we could ever figure out exactly who this player is, he probably is notable, but without knowing even a first name, and with such a common last name, there is no way to ascertain that. How do we even know which coverage pertaining to a baseall player named Smith, outside of the context of the one game he is known to have played, pertains to him? So we are left with some stats for a player described as "Smith (baseball)," despite the fact that there have been many, many Smiths who played baseball. Are we even certain that this player is unique, and didn't just play this game under a different name than he normally used? In addition, there is the fact that the league in which he played is probably the weakest historical major league, although this in itself is not a reason to delete single game players. I do like the idea of the list, and I think that is preferable to deletion, although I am not sure that all the last name-only players listed should necessarily be redirected there - after all, for non-common surnames there may be adequate overage indentifuable to the specific player to support inclusion of a separate article. Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've long been uncomfortable with the automatic presumption that anyone who's played so much as a minute of top-flight professional sports is notable, even if we know nothing about him save a surname, a date, a position and the team for which he played. We have a list at the Ice Hockey WikiProject covering similar players for the NHL, and however much I'm a partisan of minor league notability, I'd fight like the dickens against an article for obscure hockey players with nothing more than a "Dallman, F, played one game for the Montreal Victorias in 1893" line.
That being said, can we call a halt on the notion that no one could possible be voting Delete here except through chicanery, and we're incapable of exercising sound judgment? Ravenswing 21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Who has said that "no one could possible [sic] be voting Delete here except through chicanery"? No one. I pointed out that the sudden wave of Delete votes, almost entirely from people with no history in the baseball AfDs and/or WikiProject Baseball, seems suspicious. (And suspicious, it is. After a full week of this AfD, it was 6-5 in favor of keeping. Then, in the past 24 hours, 9 Delete voters suddenly came out of the woodwork.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as I pointed out to you earlier, this deletion discussion was just posted to WikiProject:Baseball today. Hence why people are coming and commenting on it now. It was also posted to the talk page of WP:BASEBALL/N which also probably contributed to more people noticing it. Again very common for there to be more people coming towards the end of an Afd. --DJSasso (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per WP:BASEBALL/N – "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they ... Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association." Smith appeared in at least one game in the Union Association, thus rendering him notable under that guideline. I do, however, weigh carefully the Q2 in the FAQs at SPORTS/N, which notes, "Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)" Nevertheless, I would assert that, for someone who played in 1884, a reasonable amount of time, which frankly, as there is no deadline, can be indefinite, as he meets the associated "sub-guideline". Though hypothetically, this could be a situation to ignore all rules if there ever was one, I still tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the guideline, and evidently to previous consensus. Weak keep. Go Phightins! 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree with your reasoning, except the prospects of finding sources with significant coverage in prose seems unlikely in this case if not even statistics sites can identify basic information such as his first name.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Roman[edit]

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

A search for independent, verifiable sources indicates that the subject does not meet notability for BLP. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: According to the references, Roman is the subject of two features in Filmmaker (magazine), which is a clearly RS. The other sources leave more to be desired. DocumentError (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Now he is working on his second narrative short film" says it all. He has yet to achieve anything noteworthy. S a g a C i t y (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage at this stage. The Filmmaker sources appear to be staff blogs, certainly not features, which may be ok for verification, but don't really demonstrate notability in themselves. --Michig (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cycloidal Wave Energy Converter[edit]

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

not yet notable,as the last paragraph indicates. It hasn't been show feasible, let alone actually put in operation. But it was accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There exists peer reviewed publications (references 4 and 5 on this page) on this topic which show the feasibility of this concept based on laboratory experiments and numerical simulations. This makes this article meet Wikipedia's Notability criteria. For a scientific concept as covered on this page, no notability requirement exists in the Notability criteria stating that the concept has to be proven in an actual application Stefansiegel (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Notability not shown. WP:Crystal ball. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

None of the content on this page meets any of the criteria of WP:Crystal ball. Instead, all of it is based on peer reviewed publications as stipulated in WP:Notability. This article does exactly what the main purpose of Wikipedia is: Publish verified and externally validated information in a format accessible to the general public. Stefansiegel (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but all that is verified is the experiments, there are no demonstrated practical installations. From what you say and what is in the article there are not even pilot implementations. When there are real world applications, there should be an article. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant independent coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that notability requirements are met. Sandstein 14:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakeel Ahmad Bhat[edit]

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

this person's only claim to notability seems to be that photos of him have appeared in various newspapers Tractor Tyres (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Person-memes can achieve notability through unconventional avenues. The references show Bhat has been the subject of coverage in at least 5 objectively reliable sources; after reviewing the content of this coverage, each article appears to be unique and not the reprinting of a single wire service report. DocumentError (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in this case the Wikipedia article reproduces an essentially racist narrative of Muslims as savages. The individual in question is not notable, and the meme as such isn't that noteworthy. --Soman (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you think there is a racist narrative involved is irrelevant to this discussion because Wikipedia is not here to takes sides. The facts are the facts, I am afraid. That the meme is noteworthy is self-evident from the amount of high-quality references possible for it. Please demonstrate otherwise if you disagree. --gilgongo (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per DocumentError. Person Meme can be notable.Subject has been mentioned in books by name and even his personal life is discussed ,added references and has reliable sources and coverage of the Subject. The effort has been lasting from 2006 if one takes the Guardian article in 2007 article to date and his photos are still being used to portray him as a symbol or face of protests and it has received significant independent coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The subject is better known as "Islamic Rage Boy", and as such has very substantial independent secondary coverage. While the subject himself may not be notable, his bio is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia for the same reason as any meme or related phenomenon requires background documentation to contribute to the sum of human knowledge, to wit "Who is Islamic Rage Boy?" It is articles like this that keep Wikipedia great. It must not be deleted. --gilgongo (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with user Gilgongo, and also feel it is important to maintain an authoritative article to inform people of the existence of this person. Many news outlets exploit his image for their own purposes, and it is useful to have a reference to expose this manipulation. As such, the article is not racist, and in fact exposes the racism inherent in the use of his image to perpetuate stereotypes. Ema Zee (talk) 20:37, 28 December 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.SK 1 as nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

An artist that doesn't seem to have any significance Tractor Tyres (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find another prize and extensive media coverage, including a newspaper review in which his work dominates and a one-hour interview in a webcast series by the Indianapolis Museum of Art. Most of the references I have added are Swedish, but I believe he meets general notability as an artist who is well known in his native country. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Yngvadottir's ability to extend this article and find references has made me decide that Kristoffer Zetterstrand is in fact a notable enough subject. Thanks, Yngvadottir. Tractor Tyres (talk) 19:40, 26 December 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.