Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 April	17 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete, WP:SNOW, qualifies for speedy deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa People's Republic[edit]

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

Not notable, proven to be a hoax, already have a main article for all pro-Russian protests so this split is not necessary. Львівське (говорити) 23:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether WP:HOAX to WP:TOOSOON (if real), it does not belong (or yet)—☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This clearly grounds for speedy deletion, as it was a blatant hoax, as described by Pravda. RGloucester — ☎ 01:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This has been deemed as a WP:HOAX per this source [1] the opposition group In Odessa have made no such claim. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have merged the info to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#Odessa. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article states "...created on April 16, 2014 by a pro-Russian internet group". Jesus wept. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:57, 17 April 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skive Magazine[edit]

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

A passing mention in one source isn't enough for WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A quick look didn't find sources. COI creator. Widefox; talk 22:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability... --Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMAGAZINE. While the magazine in fact has published work by notable authors, notability is, famously, not inherited.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Jones[edit]

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

Article is about an individual who is a youth football coach and an entrepreneur, but without any serious claim to notability. The article is essentially a glorified CV designed to promote the subject. Easily fails the subject specific WP:NFOOTBALL, and I don't think there's enough serious coverage to pass WP:GNG. If we were to have articles for all provincial sports coaches and budding entrepreneurs we'd be up to our eyeballs with articles like this. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a well-written article but one that is lacking in any notability. Fails WP:GNG, and also seems promotional (likely written by agent). Giant Snowman 09:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a good article based on an entrepreneur and football coach who has recently won the JCI UK TOYP award and holds 1000-1 odds to become a future England Manager. Perhaps more 'reliable' sources need sourcing to help with the credibility of the article but certainly a noteworthy article of a credible person. Definitely not promotional, more informational just like other articles. There are certainly more articles of football coaches that have achieved less that aren't up for deletion. Is this 'discrimination' against Gerard Jones? Looking at the criteria for notable player, he doesn't meet this but he has shown from his entrepreneurial and coaching accomplishments that he meets wider requirements. The comment regarding notability, he has featured in respected national and regional newspapers, and been published in Bank magazines and business books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.34.62 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A promotional C.V. His achievements are so mundane it is amazing to see how it can be spun into a whole article. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add. It has already been deleted and was recreated, with identical content from the look of the first AFD.

~~Keep~~ - From what I have read, it looks like an interesting article about a young man clearly trying to work hard to become someone, why we aren't encouraging this is beyond me?

It doesn't appear in any way promotional, and I see nothing but excitement at reading how a young yorkshireman has done something for himself! I wonder why people are being 'ciber' bullies on here? Instead of deleting, we should be looking for a solution which is to help make the article better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.34.62 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Interesting article, doesn't appear as if he's a decent ex player but his entrepreneurial accomplishments are noteworthy and interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.34.62 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote multiple votes. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of waffle, no evidence of notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Yes, he has qualifications, yes he has done some coaching and yes he is an entrepreneur. However, there is no indication that any of these achievements have garnered significan, reliable coverage required by GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:48, 22 April 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. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no arguments for delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Goddard Jones[edit]

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

although it appears possible that one of her books might be notable, it doesn't appear she is. John from Idegon (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the author of a notable book is notable and should have an entry because readers frequently search for context. I think the fact that her book was published by Harper Collins means that there is some reach to the book and its author.Tullyis (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons as above, her books have received notable press coverage and have been published by major publishing houses.TheWarOfArt (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's pretty common for us to have an article on the authors if they have multiple notable books. While notability isn't inherited by casual associations, an individual can gain notability for things that they have personally created. The only exception would be if the person was only notable for one thing, such as writing one book or directing one movie, where we could argue that we could have an article about their creation. However if we don't have an article on said creation, it's entirely appropriate to retain the author's article as opposed to creating a new article about the book and redirecting there. However in this instance it looks like both books have received coverage (as evidenced by this Oprah book review and this [ALA book recommendation] for Girl Trouble) and we could probably even rationalize a separate article for each of the books if we find more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw In deference to Tokyogirl79's much more extensive experience at AfD and her sound argument. John from Idegon (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State of Bacon[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks to be completed but not yet released.[2] Probably too soon to receive substantial media attention, but the release is just a few weeks away. If this discussion gets relisted, it may indeed end up becoming notable by that time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think with some work and rewording it will be a lot better, it seems notable and has enough sources that cover it. NinjaRobotPirate is right, if it's relisted, it'll be notable by that time. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow editorial improvements over time for this soon-to-release film receiving coverage and passing the cautions of WP:NFF paragraph 3. It's not as if it were unsourcable speculation. Mmmmm Bacon. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HACKSAWJIMDUGGAN. All kidding aside, I can see this getting more press after the premier in May, if it doesn't I would probably vote delete at a second AfD (based on the lack of breadth of the current sources). As it sits now it is a reasonably sourced stub, free of COI (notwithstanding my own, muhahaha!). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:22, 18 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LediVokshi[edit]

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

I don't usually nominate articles in this area, as I am not sure I would recognize notability. In this particular case(an older unreviewed article) it however seems so very doubtful that I'm bringing it here. If I judged wrong, just say so. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article was also created at User:Ledi Vokshi (an unregistered username) by the same editor and I have nominated that for speedy deletion. I can't find anything to suggest this part-time Model Mayhem model is notable. Most of the available "sources" are personal websites, blogs, MySpace, Facebook, etc. No evidence of coverage beyond what the subject has written about herself. Stalwart111 04:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of WP:RS LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jenns (actress)[edit]

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

Minor actress that fails to meet notability threshold WP:ENTERTAINER. No indication of having a significant following nor having made significant or lasting contributions to the field of entertainment. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least a year or so. I created the page as a stub in hopes of attracting others who know more about her, i.e., stage experience, etc. Tertius51 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I managed to deduce from marriage records that she married Harold Evans in 1929 in Kidderminster. She then remarried "Henry Joseph Crocker of Beverley Hills, California" in 1936 ([ref](society) Marriages. The Times (London, England), Friday, Oct 16, 1936; pg. 17; Issue 47507. (680 words) [/ref]). She might still be living - she'd be 103 now, so getting on a bit but not impossible. In the absence of confirmation of her death we have to assume that WP:BLP applies. I'm leaning towards delete unless additional sourcing can be found; I found some photos in Life Magazine from the 1930s (via Google Books) but they are hardly in-depth sources and do little more to confirm that she existed. Other than that, she appears in various long lists of actors, which are film credits, I think. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For photos, the article originally contained a series of links, although some contained near-identical images. Here's that list:

http://www.britishpictures.com/photos4/photo310.htm
http://www.fanpix.net/picture-gallery/elizabeth-jenns-picture-13337750.htm
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5146ZUoiVeL._SS500_.jpg
http://www.britishpictures.com/photos4/pics/elizabeth_jenns.jpg
http://img5.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/f/o/fonb1pj49ewzzw4.jpg?kj8as6ye
http://www.adamgerace.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Fredric-March-and-Elizabeth-Jenns-A-Star-is-Born.jpg

I had removed these links as they contained no coverage other than the photo itself; but someone could review to see if copyright still applies on all of them or if one is potentially usable here.

As to being in films, she may have been in films, but I see no evidence that they were significant roles. The notability threshold of WP:ENTERTAINER is meeting one or more of these criteria:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

While she had been in films, they appear to have been minor roles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concede her notability may be questionable, at least as a film actress. It's only that having her info in one place may bring forth more. In the end, much more is forgotten about any life, that matters to other people, than is remembered. Tertius51 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was discussed in the LA Times quite a bit for a year or two there. I think she passes the GNG. I've expanded the article somewhat to reflect this. It's not much, I know, but I believe it's enough for a keep. It was Harry Crocker she married; can it be that the Times itself made an error?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Harry is an alternate form of Henry. It's perfectly possible that he was given the written name Henry but called Harry as with Prince Henry of Wales. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clarifying. Nicknames are so weird, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, if possible LucyLucyLucyLucy1 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dayna Hart[edit]

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

This article was tagged with BLP proposed deletion but the tag was (correctly) removed after the addition of sources. But those references are not what we're looking for since they only address the subject indirectly (for instance an ad in which she appears, an IMDb cast in which she is listed or an interview in which she doesn't even appear on cam because she's the interviewer and not the interviewee). In the end, I don't think she meets the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Pichpich (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that the article as it stands is not what we are looking for and the sources are not what we need to meet notability standards, it looks to me at first glance that there are a good number of articles in the media on this individual. I think that we're down to an "editing" issue and not a "deletion" issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to sources that discuss Mrs Hart and her career directly and in sufficient depth to build a short but solidly sourced article? I could not but you seem to imply that I'm blind. Surely you don't consider the current sources as anywhere near sufficient so where is your alternative? Pichpich (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comparing her to Entertainer's notability standards is somewhat unfair as some of her publicity is her as a reporter, not an entertainer. Per Paul McDonald on general notability. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul McDonald - It needs fixing/rewriting not deleting. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She started an on-line magazine that is not yet notable, and she acted in one independent film. That is not notability. The other stuff has no sourcing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 19 April 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 speedily deleted by User:FreeRangeFrog per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Plug[edit]

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

non notable local establishment. So non notable as a matter of fact that upon further review I nominated it for speedy G11. John from Idegon (talk) 20:13, 16 April 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 procedural close. No valid rational offered for deletion. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Free Clinic[edit]

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

Fan Free Clinic Elblanco123 (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Will the nominator please state a rationale for deleting this article? The article was taken to AfD 8 minutes after it was created. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; copyvio of this. Barefooted chick (talk) 02:49, 17 April 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 Move to draftspace (creator of page agrees to this action, clear consensus)

Aimy in a Cage[edit]

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

This movie has just started filming, but I can't find significant discussion of it in reliable sources. Google search of Aimy in a Cage" brings up some social media postings, calls for volunteers, torrent sites (even though it's not even made yet), and 42 "unique" results. ... discospinster _talk 18:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film wraps Production on April 25th, 2014 and will be released in September. While you are correct that there are social media postings and calls for volunteers, I have posted the IMDB page as an official Reference, which is an extremely reliable source. : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruhlcity (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/userfy for now. The problem is that while we can pull some information from IMDb, it isn't considered to be a reliable source that shows notability. RS are sources that are independent of the subject that cover the film in depth. IMDb can be edited by anyone and is, at best, seen as a database type listing. For example, recently I had two instances where someone faked the information at IMDb. One was where someone tried to claim that she was a Grammy presenter, that she was going to play She-Hulk, and so on. The other (if I'm remembering correctly) tried to claim that Ang Lee was going to co-direct his film. That's why we can't use IMDb as a source and why in the end it is at best a database entry. This is just WP:TOOSOON for it to be on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soft delete. Move to draftspace for for a while. Some minor sources do exist outside of IMDB, but mostly due to the cult following of the film's leads.[3][4][5] This islikely to grow. The question becomes one of whether or not coverage pf the principals meets the cautions of WP:NFF paragraph 3. I think that for now, no. Simply TOO SOON Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying isn't a bad option. I'll add that to my delete nom. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I agree that we need some more reliable sources. How about we move it into Draftspace? We wrap production in THREE days. Plus we are sending out press releases now for more coverage on the film. I anticipate, just like MichaelQSchmidt, that our sources will begin to grow rapidly, very soon. I suggest that we not delete the page, rather move it to Drafts so we can make it live once our other sources come pouring in. Bruhlcity (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Bruhlcity[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jynx Maze[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Previously deleted uncontroversially, but later recreated based on now-deprecated nominations criterion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. More award nominations since the first AfD but fails PORNBIO without wins. Still lacks substantial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gene93k LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopedic porn star. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, even I have to admit that this is not a keeper... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require much better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article probably more created as promotion than coverage of encyclopedic topics. Does not meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JPL, please leave out the accusations or insinuations. I'm a staunch supporter of Rebecca1990's efforts, she should be afforded every bit of WP:AGF as any other editor and regardless of the topic. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an encyclopedic porn star. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - The subject perhaps doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO but it does satisfy WP:ANYBIO criteria #1, which says, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". I'm not intended to use WP:OSE as an argument here, but we do consider, WP:ANYBIO as a criteria of inclusion for biographical articles, many includes, actors, actress, singers from main-stream film industry. It should be deleted because, subject belongs to porn industry? I'm pretty sure, if it was not, people here, were using ANYBIO to save the article from deletion. We seriously need to give this double-standard mentality a consideration. While, PORNBIO notability guideline says, "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration", and does not give any weight to "award nominations", ANYBIO does. And, this way, these two BIO notability guideline, contradicts each other. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:20, 23 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M Sharfuddin Anik[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Other than some student work, Anik seems only to have created two films, neither of which can actually be verified through available sources. Citations given are either dead links, don't mention Anik, or about another person named M Sharfuddin Anik, who appears to be an IT Executive. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources fail WP:RS. Only slight claim to notability is award mentioned in lead which is not verifiable. A quick Google turned up nothing that rings the bell for WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although it is verifiable that someone named M Sharfuddin Anik won an award for "Best Executive", the cited source talks about a local IT executive, not a filmmaker, so it is not clear (and rather doubtful) that this is the same person. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Upon further reading, it appears that Anik has been an IT executive, taking up filmmaking as a hobby (at least according to the present version of the bio). The award is still not notable, but at least we may safely assume that it is the same M Sharfuddin Anik who won it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Citations used to support this article seem really dubious. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 16 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Pierce[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards or nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD bulk-removed (apparently via rollback) with a null edit summary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO as nominator states. Fails GNG without reliable source coverage. Searches for RS coverage get hits for other people with the same name. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pern nom. Subject fails PORNBIO and BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO because she starred in the "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" Slaughter Disc. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you might provide sourcing for the claim that this film is "iconic", "groundbreaking". or a "blockbuster". AVN said it "really is not a good movie"; other website reviews ranged from the lukewarm to "just another bag of garbage for the already putrid pile". What objective basis is there for your unlikely claim? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOT#MADEUP??? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete BLPs require much better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca1990. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the notability requirements for porn actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:11, 20 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Ashley[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Claimed mainstream appearance is an unbilled role as an unnamed and undescribed character. PROD bulk-removed (apparently via rollback) with a null edit summary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO doesn't state that the mainstream role has to necessarily be named; sometimes actors play themselves (or fictionalized versions of themselves). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Erpert: The actual wording of PORNBIO is Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. A single unbilled role does not meet this and any plain reading would be that featured at the bare minumum means credited. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:PORNBIO. No awards and nothing that rings the WP:BASIC bell. In order to meet WP:NACTOR subject needs multiple significant roles which would strongly imply that they need to be named. Sources hugely fail WP:RS thus the article generally fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erpert. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Claimed mainstream appearance is an unbilled role as an unnamed and undescribed character. If that gets one notably a Wikipedia biography, we've got a lot of biographies of extras to start on. Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person totally fails any relevant guidelines. True, "mainstream" roles do not need to be named, per se, but Notability for actors guidelines requires 2 of them that are significant. Her role was not in any way significant, and it was just one role, not two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, here's another one (btw, who determines that that first role isn't significant?). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Who determines" whether something meets the requirements of a Wikipedia guideline? Wikipedia editors do, of course. And there's a long, long series of AFD discussions concluding that roles like that one aren't significant. As to whether a show described as "similar to" Hot Babes Doing Stuff Naked is mainstream rather than softcore erotica, well . . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 18 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miho Tachibana[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No assertion of notability. No awards or nominations. Little or no independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't read Japanese. Unless the nom can, we probably need someone to check the Japanese language sources before proceeding further. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well. I can't read Japanese, but Google Translate is workable enough to assess the reliability of the sources. Ref 1 is a "talent" page for Rockza, which identifies itself as an agent for "strip show" performers. Certainly not independent, likely no more reliable than a "Live Nude Coeds" sign, contributing nothing to notability. Same for Ref 7, also a Rockxa page. Ref 2 is a retailer page displaying videos for sale, same assessment. Refs 3 and 5 link to the same page on the now defunct "Urabon Navigator" site, which provided links to various retailers selling the subject's videos, same lack of value in establishing notability. Refs 4 and 6 go to some sort of a Yahoo search page, with a minibiography of the subject sourced to Wikipedia. Again, zero value in establishing notability. The page is apparently based on the Japanese wiki article, where the only reference is a blog. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails PORNBIO and BASIC. Sources fail WP:RS per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete BLPs require better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notabity requirements for porn actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Epeefleche: I would not have tagged Jamescur as an WP:SPA if I were you. But in any case all this doesn't matter, what matters is the strength of the arguments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep in light of the sockpuppetry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Shafiroff[edit]

Not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia, not notable, with very few original sources. A strong scent of WP:PROMOTION. The article is about a non-notable individual who has received several inconsequential mentions on various social blogs and has numerous photographs on paid photography sites, such as Patrick McMullan. The article is promotional and an advertisement for a non-notable socialite and research confirms it was created by the same PR firm that is promoting this individual on social media and other blogs. Therefore, delete Ceylobo (Ceylobo (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree w/ nom. No obvious indicator of notability here. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I haven't come across you at AfD for awhile. As to your comment, did you write that after reading the articles I point to, and the other RS coverage of the subject? And after considering GNG? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Meets GNG. As the fact that Business Week has an executive profile on her and a Wall Street Journal article is devoted to her and an article in The Forward is devoted to her might have suggested would be the case, she has substantial coverage in RSs (as indicated both in the WP article refs and in a google search) and therefore meets wp:GNG, and is notable by our standards.

That she receives substantial RS coverage for serving on boards, being a philanthropist, and being a socialite is of no moment – we cover those people as well, if they meet GNG.

Contrary to nom's assertion (nom should try wp:before next time), there are many sources, the article is not promotional (if it were, editing not deletion would be the proper course of action), and nom's OR and outing of whoever first wrote the article is both irrelevant (the article stands on its own merits) and not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that a profile on the Business Insider and Donor of the Day blurb in the WSJ clearly demonstrates Wiki Notability, is utterly ludicrous. We all know that the B/I has one of those entires on just about anyone who is on a charity board. Does that make every single person who is a board member of a charity Notable for Wiki purposes??? Likewise, for example, should everyone who makes the Donor of the Day column in the WSJ be fodder for an encyclopedic article??? As for any suggestion that this is not promotional, can anyone expound as to the real purpose of a socialite being featured in a full page encyclopedic biography (who has no independent relevance whatsoever, other than for just being a socialite)?? I most certainly wish to know because I am sincerely starting to doubt the value of Wikipedia's relevance as a true encyclopedia??? (Ceylobo (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Ceylobo (who nominated this article for deletion) has been blocked indefinitely. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I agree with regret that the article is likely a professional advertisement cleverly disguised as an encyclopedia article, the fact remains that the subject does in fact meet both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe it's this nasty cold, but I can't really smell WP:PROMOTION like the nom seems to be able to. I'd much fancy an explanation about that~ ~Helicopter Llama~ 21:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@~Helicopter - Have you read the

current life section. That looks like how my resume is written. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful news, Nick -- let's write a wp article about you as well; I'm quite impressed by the substantial coverage of you in RSs. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Epee - I've so missed your cute and pugnacious attitude. NickCT (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Professional advertisement that reads like a resume. The subject is not notable nor suitable for a biographical entry on WP. I do hope I am not blocked for voicing my honest opinion on the subject :) (Jamescur (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

I don't think its fair to imply that I am a single purpose account when I have been a member since 2012. Although I have contributed infrequently due to my work schedule, I have done so on many different subjects/topics and have absolutely no axe to grind with this subject in particular :) (Jamescur (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You certainly are an SPA. But the closing admin can review the facts and decide for himself. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am??? That's certainly news to me. But then again, you seem to be the know-it-all of WP who blocks editors that disagree with you, so I guess your false accusations must somehow be correct and I must be mistaken or perhaps even delusional. Enjoy your evening Epeefleche :) (207.237.211.246 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Jamescur/207.237.211.246, I suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL before continuing your editing on Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you reddogsix, I most certainly will. But I suggest Epeefleche do the same before making false accusations that I am an SPA. Although it should be axiomatic, I will point out that he cannot make uncivil false accusations and expect civility from me in return. Goodnight (Jamescur (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Jamescur -- you appear to be the only editor who is of the view that I made a false accusation. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the only view that matters as, axiomatically, I would know better than any other editor if I was an SPA or not. Goodnight (Jamescur (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Untrue. As you will discover at the close, your view as to whether you are an SPA is not "the only view that matters." If it remains that you are the only one of that view, including the closer ... then you will be deemed an SPA for purposes of this AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And no doubt the closer will reach that conclusion Epeefleche because you will strong-arm them into doing so. This article was nom by Ceylobo after two very experienced Wiki admins noted in their edit comments that the article was NN. Immediately upon nom, another very experienced Wiki editor supported deletion. Yet from the moment of your Strong Keep, not a single other editor has joined this discussion. Why?? Because they are afraid to do so. Multiple editors talk about how, and I merely quote so kindly refrain from calling me UNCIVL, you act "psychotic[ally] bullying, strong-arming and blocking other editors and then striking through their edits to wipe their existence off the face of Wikipedia." These comments are noted all over the web on discussion boards. [redacted] I think Wiki is a lost cause if they are going to let someone like you control the content on this site. Of course, I have no doubt that you will now have one of your sock-puppets block me indefinitely like you did the nom (Jamescur (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

hey yall needa chill out like for real i dont think we should fight fire with fire even if metallica tells us to or whateverer. this is an afd discussion, nothing about SPAs (although it sounds like we all need a spa getaway), and the kinds of attacks from both sides are really just uncalled for. i mean, i don't have huge experience with editing here but i know that this has nothing to do with the discussion so just chill out it's wikipedia for pete's sake ~Helicopter Llama~ 15:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript for the record: Jamescur and Ceylobo are now confirmed sockpuppets -- see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ceylobo/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_commen EEng (talk) 14:29, 24 April 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. (closing for User:Jimfbleak) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Centre for Information Policy and Security (ECIPS)[edit]

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

No indications of significant independent coverage of this organization. A couple of stories in "World News Tomorrow" (the editor of which was the creator of this article), but there is no clear indication at their website as to who "World News Tomorrow" is or who edits their website. (There is no "about us" page at this website, and many of their stories appear several years out of date, casting doubt on the reliability of this site as a source.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Think tank article says this organization is one of the three "most significant think-tanks of the United Kingdom". 71.139.142.249 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This page needed to be recreated anyway because of COI and self-sourcing issues. Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Harsh (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchell[edit]

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

Not notable band per WP:BAND. The Morning Record reference provided is a newspaper source and is an independent and reliable one, but just mentions about the band and is trivial. The other source on Discogs.com is perhaps not reliable. Harsh (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - As per the points raised by User:Gongshow. Harsh (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per point #2 of WP:BAND as, according to Allmusic ([6]) the band placed an album on the Billboard 200 chart. Also meets #5 (two albums on Decca Records and #6 (Larry Byrom and Chris Couchois). Article could use improvement but the notability standard is met. - Dravecky (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

WP:BAND-#5 says-two albums on a major record label i.e, Decca Records in this case. Their first album Ratchell 1 was not released under Decca record as per the the source [7]
6 says- The band must contain two or more independently notable musicians. Chris Couchois is already nominated AfD.
2 says- The band has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The song in Billboard 200 list in 1972. I can't verify it in Billboard 1972 archives. Harsh (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These two sources, in addition to Allmusic, show that the group had a charting album. These sources show that both Ratchell and Ratchell II were released on Decca. As for coverage, I'm not seeing much, but there's this reference from the article, this piece from the Evening Independent, plus a pair of brief Billboard write-ups. I have incorporated these sources into the article. For an admittedly obscure band from over 40 years ago, there appears to be sufficient material for an article. Gongshow talk 05:41, 17 April 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. There is a strong consensus that this video is notable since it has received significant and sustained coverage in reliable sources as is required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (events). (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David After Dentist[edit]

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

Unnecessary article on a topic of questionable notability. —Entropy ^(talk) 12:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it deserves to be there - there are many "David After the Dentist" references in popular culture and people may seek out an explanation of the reference.Tullyis (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets notability requirements with press coverage over 5 years. Loads of web content: Washington Post[8], Business Insider[9], CNN[10], Gawker[11], Time[12], HLN (Time Warner)[13] Featured on TV shows from Bill O'Reilly[14] to Tosh.0[15] It's still getting media attention in 2014, over 5 years later: Entrepreneur[16], NY Daily News[17], ET Online[18]. There's lots of coverage there not just about the video but what the family did afterwards, responses to the video, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula's comment. The article clearly demonstrates and surpasses the WP:GNG and WP:Source thresholds. EBstrunk18 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm curious if there are any relevant guidelines here. Is there anything like WP:Notability (viral videos). Other viral videos do appear to merit a page (e.g. Charlie_Bit_My_Finger). Granted that's a WP:Otherstuffexists argument. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG comes to mind. Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche - Care to suggest which WP:GNG guideline you feel this article meets? NickCT (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which GNG guideline? GNG is itself a guideline. That's what the last "G" stands for. It is a guideline that states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...." On this page, above, and in a google search of the subject, one can easily see such coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I which have said "which WP:GNG criteria". re "significant coverage in reliable sources". Would you care to identify what you feel represents "significant coverage in reliable sources". NickCT (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately, we're probably obligated to keep these articles given the media attention they generate from reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep - Looking over GNG. I don't see which criteria this article meets. None of the cite on the article currently look all that reliable. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following comments from Ninja I now see and acknowledge significant coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Per WP:NRVE, the sources in the article are immaterial. There are thousands of hits in reliable sources from a simple Google search, and there are continuing articles written today that are cataloged on Google News. The first page of results has enough reliable sources to write an entire article. I wish every topic were so easy to research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @NinjaRobotPirate - There are a lot of "moderate" quality sources here (i.e. NY Daily New, Gawker), but I'm failing to see any mention in major mainstream media outlets. I'm also failing to see mention in any significant publication. NickCT (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @NickCT: I know where you're coming from, and I'd agree with you if those were the only sources. However, this has received extensive coverage in The New York Times ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]). You can find similar amounts of coverage in other newspapers. Not every one of those articles is a full-length piece on the video, but they all include more than trivial mentions. Just do a Google search on CNN, and you'll get several pages more. Even the Wall Street Journal has several pages worth of hits. Have you even done a Google search? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - @NinjaRobotPirate: - "Have you even done a Google search?" - Google search? What's that........? (sarc mark) Of course I Google searched but I didn't go any any "site:" searches. You apparently have. Well done. Someone should really add a couple of those refs to the article to avoid this coming to AfD again. NickCT (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant amount of secondary source discussion over a sustained period of time. — Cirt (talk) 01:04, 18 April 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 Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Sound[edit]

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

Award given out twice, once in 2002, the other in 2003, it isn't sourced, not enough for it's own page LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate section in Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards, newly created helpfully by editor OscarGuy13. --do ncr am 15:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:26, 16 April 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 Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards#Best Visual Effects (2002-2003). $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Visual Effects[edit]

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

Award given out twice, once in 2002, the other in 2003, it isn't sourced, not enough for it's own page LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate section in Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards, newly created helpfully by editor OscarGuy13. --do ncr am 15:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now covered by Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. GoldenRing (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meenakshi Reddy Madhavan[edit]

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

No sources, not notable. A strong scent of WP:PROMOTION, therefore delete Shurjoroi (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her only claim to fame seems to be her father, N. S. Madhavan, "one of the most powerful voice of Malayalam literature." I have to say, that article probably wouldn't stand up to an AfD either. G S Palmer (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A quick Google search brings up quite a lot of results which can be used to expand the article. Satisfies WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 16 April 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aruni Kashyap[edit]

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

One novel published. The author has published several articles by himself, but there is a lack of independent sources. For instance, the reference from Poemhunter looks like a self-authored profile. Possible WP:PROMOTION. Propose deletion Shurjoroi (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Zaidi[edit]

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

It reads like a narrative-form CV, and all the author can leverage is her book being shortlisted in one prize. Could be WP:PROMOTION. Delete Shurjoroi (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it sure quacks like WP:PROMOTION. GoldenRing (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNOPPOSED. Relisted twice and two deletes (nom plus GoldenRing... and I make three) this one is clear enough to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prajwal Parajuly[edit]

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

This article's notability has been previously questioned by an unlogged user, and the deletion tag removed by KHill-LTown (talk). Among the reasons given for the lack of notability in that instance were a lack of reliable sources independent of the author (e.g. the pre-eminence of comments from his publisher), as well as the presence of a large section that read like a narrative-form CV. I have tried to clean up the article, by removing unsubstantiated statements, and all I am left with is a publication contract with Quercus and the shortlisting of a story. As it is, I am therefore in doubt whether this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and is not a personal promotion page (an impression I got from the rather hyperbolic language used before I toned it down). After all, there are many writers who publish books and whose stories get shortlisted for prizes, but not all of them have a Wikipedia page. Has this author won any prizes or earned other recognitions that could justify a claim to notability? As it stands, and after trying to rescue it, I suggest it should be deleted. Shurjoroi (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with The Gurkha's Daughter. The book has received favorable press and, as such, it seems to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Moreover, the book is currently the biggest reason for the author's notability, so it seems reasonable to keep and merge. --Grasshopper6 (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update: I have added more references from the Guardian, the Hindustan Times and LiveMint. --Grasshopper6 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination with semi-protection to keep out meatpuppets. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev[edit]

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

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

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

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

Looks like WP:PROMOTION. All sources refer to Russian-language sites. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN Gdv777 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:: WP:PROMOTION is not applicable as the sources are reliably sources. WP:ANYBIO specifies additional caveats, but for the basic inclusion, WP:BASIC is relevant. WP:POLITICIAN, this article passes #2 of it. In any case, just the fact that it is in another language does not justify its deletion. See WP:NOENG. It also passes the general notability guideline. Ging287 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:: As stated above WP:PROMOTION does not apply because the article is well cited and merely because the sources are Russian does not justify a deletion. In order to make the information more credible, additional sources in English have been added. The article passes #2 of WP:POLITICIAN and the general notability guideline. Article does not fail WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC applies as person has considerable coverage in both Russia and Western press. • Wallnut tree (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2014

I think, it fails #2 of WP:POLITICIAN because the goals of the Guild of Purveyors slightly differ from politics - you can read it on their website (here). In my opinion, it also fails of WP:GNG, because of it's sources (WP:NOR). So, I think that the article must be deleted. Gdv777 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways. Either he is a politican, and then he passes #2 of WP:POLITICIAN or he isn't one, and the additional caveat doesn't qualify. Ging287 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Numerous users and IP users have been removing/omitting sources, for seemingly vague reasons. 'Black PR' and other stuff. Ging287 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:: Now the article is made of unverified information - so it should be deleted. Kliff93 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:: Looks like this article was created just to spoil reputation of mentioned person. It refers to strange articles from uknown authors. It should be deleted. Manaos (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Unknown authors' Do you mean reliable sources? They are independent from the subject and just because an article doesn't make sense, it shouldn't be deleted. Content can be edited by anyone, so WP:SOFIXIT applies. Tutelary (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Sergei Vasiliev cannot be regarded as a political figure. He is a businessman and has rather an indirect relation to the politics. Also, the information in the article is misrepresented. It's said that he was honored a lot of awards, including the highest public award of the Russian Federation in the field of food production, but in fact not he, but the company was awarded. The Order of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 3rd Class and the letters of thanks also cannot be considered significant awards (contradiction WP:ANYBIO). In the cited references Vasiliev is only mentioned in the text, significant coverage of his activities, as required by WP:GNG, is absent. Regarding the controversy – it's only a brief burst of news coverage, ie it's necessary to remember the WP:NTEMP rule. The article on Ground Report cannot be considered reliable and third-party, news on this site can be written by anyone. Polina Popova, author of the article "The "Krysha" – Oligarchs and their Protectors" had registered on the website and published her article the same day – March 5, 2014. 213.87.131.147 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has been repeatedly censored and blanked by Sockpuppets and possible meatpuppets in an attempt to censor the reliably source controversy section. It passes WP:GNG, content should be regarded under WP:UNDUE and such.

I propose to consider each source separatelly.

2, 10 – official web site, ie not an independent source of information.

9 – web site, where the article can be published by anyone, unreliable source (author – unknown Polina Popova).

3 – news refer to the article of freelancer Polina Popova (9th source), moreover the information about Sergei Vasiliev is incomplete, thus besides the fact that the reliability of information is in doubt, significant coverage is about the company, but not about the person of Vasiliev.

4, 6 – the same article in the blog EconoMonitor, and again siginificant part of the article is devoted to the company and a couple of lines to Sergei Vasiliev.

5 – too few information about Vasiliev, absolutely no data, except the fact that he was involved in a kind of controversy and is the head of the guild of Kremlin suppliers.

7, 8 – the same article, nothing except the information about the scandal again.

Ie WP:GNG compliance wasn not shown, as well as the apparennt contradiction to the rule WP:NTEMP (brief surge of interest).

Tne only source that is possible to pay attention to is the first one (although the article revolves around the same scandal). However, according to the rules the presence of multiple sources is necessary (third WP:GNG note). 213.87.131.69 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I agree that this article should be deleted. I have looked through infromation - strange facts about "pushed other companies" and references to articled which have been written by uknown outsorsers. And this man is not political man, so the whole part of text is not relevant. In outcome we see that his page has beed created by competitors and it is not acceptable for wikipedia. 178.124.104.92 (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2014

Delete : First of all - this article is not useful for people. And yes - I agree with above mentioned opinions - sourses looks very strange and unreliable. Looks unreal that the same people protect such information in article and now they protect this article. Their tryings to save such pieces of not approved information which can damage reputation of this preson looks rather strange. My be they are not neutral in this case. 89.178.101.21 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samit Basu[edit]

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

No independent sources in the article. Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. Delete. Shurjoroi (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject may be notable but the lack of RS sources constitutes a huge fail for both WP:V and WP:BLP. Additionally the article has a decidedly promotional tone to it and arguably fails WP:NPOV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a citation to the article. The article just needs improvement with in-line citations and with some editing. With just one check, Samit Basu has won a number of awards and has recently sold the rights to one of his books to be made into a movie. The article should easily satisfy WP:BLP but does require fixing. - Pmedema (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Undecided on this one. The article as it is at present is under-referenced and overpromotional, but I have spotted one or two references (such as this review from Strange Horizons) that help towards notability, and I would expect a few more on a detailed search. And it is still regrettably difficult for fantasy authors from outside North America and the British Isles, no matter how well-known they are in their home markets, to break through into American or British publication, and the places we are likely to look for reliable reviews in an AfD discussion - so even (as in this case) when it starts happening, there can still be a risk of systemic bias because we are missing existing reliable coverage of their earlier careers. PWilkinson (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This pioneer Indian sci-fi fantasy writer passes GNG. His website neatly collects interviews and such HERE, sort through there until you're convinced for yourself that he is the subject of multiple published instances of independent coverage. That said, this article is highly promotional and needs a neutral rewrite. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Summer[edit]

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

2010 reality series that was in development and never made it to air. – Recollected • 18:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was deemed notable enough to be run in Did you know, so I doubt that the cancellation of the series means that the subject itself isn't notable anymore. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Zammuto[edit]

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

GNG is not clear however more research into RS could be done WondermentG (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Lots more articles in addition to those already on the page: 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7. HollandJackson (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D. A. Blyler[edit]

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

Non-notable individual who's written a non-notable novel. This is essentially an unreferenced CV that has existed on WP for 10 years. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - the subject of this article could be a borderline keep in my estimation, but the article would need to be better developed to do so (and it can be developed). If we just use WP:GNG, I think it's a keep. If we consider WP:AUTHOR, we do have articles on less-notable writers, and between essays, stories, poems, the subject's body of work is substantial enough to consider meeting some of the WP:AUTHOR criteria. There are sources out there, as quick google searches show. For the article to merit inclusion, it would need to incorporate those sources. If the article were developed before the close of this AfD, I'd say borderline keep, if it's not developed or shown to be developable, it's a borderline delete IMHO.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a small number of interviews and reviews in publications of uncertain reliability/significance[25][26] but in my opinion that's not enough to meet WP:GNG and none of his works could be considered "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (WP:AUTHOR) Nothing in Kirkus or other well-known publications, although for work published in the 1990s there may be offline coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on Questia and Highbeam, I did not find anything of note, and only found a brief review in "Books Received" Poetry, Vol. 166, No. 5 (Aug., 1995), pp. 306-307.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:05, 21 April 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Lyon[edit]

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

Very dubious notability CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Google search did not provide sufficient evidence of notability. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jukka Tapanimäki. I'm using a bit of discretion to close this old AfD; interpreting the keep vote as a potential for merge (since this is Jukka's most famous work). Deletion arguments also point out that coverage exists but seems insufficient for a full-fledged article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zamzara[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of this game in reliable sources. The review I found in ACE magazine is one of the tiny budget box reviews which usually don't constitute significant coverage. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything in Google and unless somebody has print magazines from the relevant time then we're probably at a dead end.BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of Jukka Tapanimäki's most famous works (but not the very most famous), and one of the few Finnish Commodore 64 games to be commercially released and gain fame even outside Finland. With a little googling, I found a mention that it was favourably reviewed in Zzap!64 as well. Unfortunately, I don't have the actual magazine issue where it was reviewed. JIP | Talk 18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the ACE review, the Zzap might well be a mini-review that's just a small box of content. These don't usually count as significant coverage. I can't see keeping an article with only one trivial article and some unknown coverage in a magazine. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to software's author, Jukka Tapanimäki. Sourcing is limited but exists, so notability independent of the programmer is not established, but this would fit well as a subsection of that article.Dialectric (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is possible but is Jukka Tapanimäki himself notable? Currently his article is only sourced to an essay he wrote himself. But I don't read Finnish. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. Can't soft delete as a contested PROD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Saeed[edit]

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

A non-notable person per WP:BIO. Was deleted per BLPPROD earlier but was recreated. SMS ^Talk 21:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 21:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 16 April 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 Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Art Direction[edit]

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

Award given out twice, once in 2002, the other in 2003, it isn't sourced, not enough for it's own page LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate section in Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards, newly created helpfully by editor OscarGuy13. Keep the page history in the redirected article, no need to delete that, best to credit the contribution per our crediting guidelines. --do ncr am 15:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent in depth coverage, per WP:GNG; the proposed merge target has no independent refs either. Feel free to ping my talk page if improvements are made tot he article. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. GoldenRing (talk) 12:01, 16 April 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 Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best DVD[edit]

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

Award given out twice, once in 2000, the other in 2001, it isn't sourced, not enough for it's own page LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate section in Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards, newly created helpfully by editor OscarGuy13. Keep the page history in the redirected article, no need to delete that, best to credit the contribution per our crediting guidelines. --do ncr am 15:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. GoldenRing (talk) 12:01, 16 April 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 Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Costume Design[edit]

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

Award given out twice, once in 2002, the other in 2003, it isn't sourced, not enough for it's own page LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent in depth coverage, per WP:GNG. Feel free to ping my talk page if improvements are made tot he article. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~as above~~ to appropriate section of Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. GoldenRing (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate section in Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards, created helpfully by editor OscarGuy13 after this and related AFDs were started. Can't these be finished now? --do ncr am 02:20, 17 April 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 Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best DVD Special Features[edit]

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

Award given out once in 2000, and it isn't sourced, not enough for it's own page LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate section in Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards, newly created helpfully by editor OscarGuy13. Keep the page history in the redirected article, no need to delete that, best to credit the contribution per our crediting guidelines. --do ncr am 15:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. GoldenRing (talk) 12:02, 16 April 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 Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best DVD Commentary[edit]

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

Award given out once in 2000, and it isn't sourced, not enough for it's own page LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~as above~~ to appropriate section of Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. GoldenRing (talk) 12:02, 16 April 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 Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Film Related Website[edit]

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

Award given out once in 2000, and it isn't sourced, not enough for it's own page LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate section in Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards, newly created helpfully by editor OscarGuy13. Keep the page history in the redirected article, no need to delete that, best to credit the contribution per our crediting guidelines. --do ncr am 15:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above - they really had a lot of these, didn't they? GoldenRing (talk) 12:06, 16 April 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 Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Screenplay[edit]

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

Award given only 2 times, once in 1997, the other in 2000. I find that hardly notable enough for it's own page. Plus it's not referenced LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate section in Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards, newly created helpfully by editor OscarGuy13. Keep the page history in the redirected article, no need to delete that, best to credit the contribution per our crediting guidelines. --do ncr am 15:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. GoldenRing (talk) 12:06, 16 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Pinkowski[edit]

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

Appear to be non-notable writer. References are not specifically about author. Appears to fail WP:N. Claim of award is unsubstantiated. reddogsix (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Award is sourced ([27]), through by itself it is rather minor. He seems a notable person, however. John L. Cotter, ‎Daniel G. Roberts, ‎Michael Parrington, 1992, The Buried Past: An Archaeological History of Philadelphia refer to him as a "noted Polish-American historian" (I cannot provide a Google Book link, for some reason it is 404 and broken there). He seems cited a number of times on GBooks and has some publication indexed in GScholar, through not in major journals, as far as I an tell. This amateour-looking publication describes him as "veteran historian" A newsletter of the Polish American Historical Association ([28]). [29] mentions him thus: "Edward Pinkowski, 95 years old, one of Polonia’s most respected historians and a person who initiated the installation of several historical markers in Pennsylvania" John J. Bukowczyk (1996). Polish Americans and Their History: Community, Culture, and Politics. University of Pittsburgh Pre. pp. 30–. ISBN 978-0-8229-7321-8. more down-to-earth mentions him in passing as an "amateur scholar". I think he passes as a notable Polish-American activist with a sprinkling of amateur academic historian/writer achievements, but I'll ping few people for comments: User:DGG, User:Randykitty, User:Piotr Puchalski, User:Nihil novi. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
question1 What is the relative status of the Cavaliers Cross of the Order of Merit of Poland? DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the lowest of the 5 classes. Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland calls it the "knight's cross", but the Polish American Congress refers to it as a Cavalier's Cross. This means that possessing it probably doesn't in itself establish notability (based on practices for British and other honours). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Library holdings from : Forgotten fathers , 200; Pills, pen & politics : the story of General Leon Jastremski, 1843-1907, 136; History of Bridgeport, Pa., 99; John Siney, the miners' martyr 88. Not insignificant, but I need to check further. This would fit better as WP:AUTHOR than WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTH. His Pills etc book was reviewed in J. Southern History, J. American History, Am. Hist. Rev.; Washington's Officers in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. I'm relying on clause 3 and the first three reviews listed: "The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". This isn't the strongest keep I've supported, but I think the three reviews in the major historical journals are enough here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I was dubious, but the reviews suggest notability. However,this is a poor article mostly about some NN genetic research. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 20 April 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 Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Film Review Website[edit]

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

Award was given out once in 1999 and the recipient doesn't have an article LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate section of Online Film Critics Society Discontinued Awards GoldenRing (talk) 12:07, 16 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Somo Project[edit]

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

No references relating to project besides their website and social media pages, no indication of notability Iago Qnsi 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any independent sources. GoldenRing (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Likewise unable to find enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not to be confused with this other SOMO Project. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:16, 20 April 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. (WP:Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agnivansha[edit]

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

Original research and unsourced claims , does not have reliable sources Shrikanthv (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is poor, certainly, but it is one of the principlemythological dynasties of India from which groups such as the Rajputs claim descent. Similar to the Solar dynasty and the Lunar dynasty. It is capable of being expanded and otherwise improved. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Sardar[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT. M. Caecilius (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject clearly passes WP:GNG & WP:BIO. Significant coverage in the reliable sources (Yahoo, Voa, Guardian, Cnn, Hrw, Time, Channel4, Nst, etc). The article requires a little expansion to cover all his related works, not deletion. He is not notable for a single event as the nominator cites it for a reason of deletion. As reported by Yahoo news,

His last feature for AFP, filed on Tuesday, was about a lion called Marjan, rescued by animal welfare officials from living on a rooftop in Kabul. That was a follow-up to a story Ahmad himself broke last year, generating headlines around the world.

He wrote in the feature: "Marjan is named after a famous half-blind lion who lived at Kabul zoo and became a symbol of Afghanistan's national survival after living through coups, invasions, civil war and the hardline Taliban era before dying in 2002.

Ahmad showed his entrepreneurial bent by founding Kabul Pressistan, a successful local news agency that has provided fixing and translation services for numerous foreign reporters coming to Kabul.

There are many similar events quoted by various reliable sources that falsify the nominator's claim and establish notability of the subject and suggests subject suitable for inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources here, Nyt, Dailymail, Latimes, Official AFP blog. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. While the article may pass WP:GNG and WP:BLP, per WP:BASIC,

Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not.

The fact, furthermore, that an article is created for the subject only after his death, and that all reliable sources available are primarily devoted to covering the event surrounding his death should be indicative of the subject's otherwise lack of sufficient notability. None of the quotes presented above, in addition, exhibit sufficient notability to warrant an article. Information about the subject is best presented in separate articles on the shooting event and the news agency he founded, if either should be found notable. M. Caecilius (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is neither notable for a single event nor it falls under WP:NOT. Please review sources given above or do a simple google search. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to voice my objection to the above commentator's condescending suggestions, both of which I had, in fact, performed earlier and which led to my belief that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines.

That being said, none of the quotes the above user cited for establishing notability is sufficient. The fact remains that, with no offence meant, had this journalist not died in a memorable event, there would not be this preponderance of sources the article is relying solely upon, and the notability of his deeds would have been called into question much more easily, which qualifies him squarely within WP:ONEEVENT.

Finally, I would point out that I had, in fact, never appealed to WP:NOT, which is only included in the above note in disjunction to WP:ONEEVENT and can be ignored for our purposes. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Another contributor above makes the questionable assertion that the fact that the article was only created after his death proves he is only known for a single event.

This assertion is questionable because it assumes the massively false assumption that we already have articles about every living individual who meets our notability criteria. This is not even close to being true. While there are lots of AFD, for instance, for academics who do not meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMICS they would be dwarfed by the number of senior academics who would meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMICS for whom we don't have articles.

Very few of the individuals for whom we keep standalone articles had their wikipedia notability established by a single notability factor. Almost all our BLPs had their wikipedia notability established by adding up the inherent notability of partial notability factors. As per WP:ACADEMICS being recognized as a a leading member of one's field by one's professional peers is a strong notability factor. Ahmad Sardar being interviewed by less experienced war reporters is a kind of recognition by his professional peers. I think someone could have started an article about Sardar, prior to his death. I think if it had been brought to AFD, his notability would have been right on the cusp, and that discussion could have gone either way. But his assassination is a strong notabilty factor, and added to the other factors, should establish his notability. Geo Swan (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the above commentator's contention that I made any suggestion to the effect that no article should be created after a person's death, but solely that the present situation, which is that (and I don't believe that anyone has yet refuted this satisfactorily) the subject has only come into the spotlight of reliable sources by virtue of his notable death, is a strong indicator that we need to examine closely whether the individual fits WP:ONEEVENT. Certainly there are individuals who, by our omission, are notable but not included in this encyclopaedia at the time of death. That being said, the subject in question here is not one such example.

Moreover, "being interviewed by less experienced war reporters" is a rather weak criterion. I need scarcely to point out that this criterion would lead to the inclusion of patently non-notable people. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every single reference is connected to his death, which supports the nominator's contention that this is a ONEEVENT. If someone could present some source independent of that event, I'd be open to changing my lvote. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:. As I have noted somewhere in the discussion above, I would support creating an article on the bombing event, which is clearly notable in itself, as the sources currently presented in the article in question demonstrate. Information about the subject is then best presented in the article on the event, as well as an article on the press organization he had founded, if that organization should be found notable. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to event article. I understand the "ONEVENT" claim, but we should also remember that people's lives are often first publicly documented on their deaths. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Re-direct since he does seem to be notable just for the one event. Above all else, I vote against deletion, since its a notable event worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Orser67 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to event article. Gurumoorthy Poochandhai 16:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a one event article, and its very existence just adds to the undue emphasis on recent events that is one of Wikipedia's major problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wholly convinced by this sort of recentism argument. While we need more coverage of people like Fanny Butterfield Newell the idea that we should obtain some sort of parity by deleting recent stuff, if taken to its logical extension is absurd. There are English kings about whom all we know (and that uncertainly) is their name, parentage, kingdom and (very) approximate dates of reign - should we then reduce all monarch articles to this level? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This is an obvious "slippery slope" fallacy, as WP:ONEEVENT does not say anything about parity or the coverage of English monarchs. If this guideline itself is in dispute, then the best venue to discuss that would certainly not be this AfD discussion. M. Caecilius (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difference United[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No improvement since Dec. 2013. The only claim to fame is that they have music that has played on the radio, but there is no support for charting success. Not a notable band per WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Difference United has a verified fan base which exceeds 96,000 according to their official Facebook page.www.facebook.com/differenceunited

The band is currently ranked #4 on the Nashville Pop charts according to Reverbnation. "Nashville Pop Charts". ReverbNation. Retrieved 31 March 2014.

The band is cited as having toured internationally, which is verified by international media outlets and videos viewable via page references such as YouTube.The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata): Party fever after freezing splash - From ice-cold dips to gigs, Shillong & Guwahati plan big for year's last night."Difference United Xian China". Youtube. Retrieved 31 March 2014."Difference United India Tour Video". YouTube. Retrieved 31 March 2014."Difference United Chinese Television Promotion". YouTube. Retrieved 31 March 2014.

The band has gained national and international radio airplay of singles from both of its album releases as cited. Notability, while subjective, can clearly be measured in a tangible / verifiable way as it pertains to Difference United.http://www.crwradiopromotions.com/splay/differenceunited-iknow/

In reviewing Wikipedia notability guidelines for music it is clear that the following criteria pertaining to notability have been met as referenced above: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.[note 4] Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 5] Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." Notability (music)

Musicnewsnashville (talk)MusicnewsnashvilleMusicnewsnashville (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I am not sure why this page is being considered for deletion. The criteria set forth in Wikipedia Notability Guidelines were raised upon the creation of the article and addressed at that time. "18:28, 24 April 2010‎ A little insignificant (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,856 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (does not meet speedy criteria- notability is established and referenced.) (undo | thank)" [30] The reference material cited in the article establishes clear notability as indicated in the previous points raised in support of keeping the article. I also found the following additional references to their international tours in local media:

Aizawl India Public Concert "Difference United in Aizawl". Misual.com. Retrieved 31 March 2014.

Shillong India Public Concert "Shillong.com". Shillong.com. Retrieved 31 March 2014.

Calcutta India Newspaper Article Regarding Public Performance of Difference United "Dream Again with US band - Nashville-based Difference United to perform over weekend". http://www.telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 31 March 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Difference United Romania Tour National Press Coverage "Difference Band Launches in Romania". curiernational.ro. Retrieved 31 March 2014. "Cultural Information in the Press". http://www.agenda.ro. Retrieved 31 March 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) ~~Myreasonwhy~~

Comment The reason the article is being nominated is that it clearly does not meet any of the notability guidelines. For bands they can be found at WP:BAND and in general, the information can be found at WP:GNG. Please restrict discussion to these notability guidelines or another related guideline.

"Nashville Pop charts according to Reverbnation" is not a national chart. See WP:GOODCHARTS to see accepted national charts. Similarly, "national and international radio airplay" is not the same as charting nationally.

A national tour would be something major, not church-to-church, small clubs and certainly not individual concert dates.

I also have serious concerns that users Musicnewsnashville and Myreasonwhy are both WP:SPAs and share the same editing style. I suspect that they may be socks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many shows exactly would you consider to be something major? Of what size? Of what production quality? The concerts depicted in the video's referenced clearly show large crowds and major production elements including television crews. The international media outlets sourced outline multiple city tours not one off shows. Certainly for an act to have performed on three continents, to visibly large crowds, with corresponding radio airplay, and national print media coverage can be interpreted as noteworthy. I am also inserting a link to an press coverage album which contains multiple print newspaper articles not readily found online. [31] The press items are in the bottom album titled "Press".

In regards to your sock allegation and investigation notice referenced above I am not a prolific Wikipedia editor, as is obvious vis a vis my rudimentary editing skills. That said, I was brought into this discussion because of a deletion notice placed on my board as the creator of the original Difference United article and for no other reason. Myreasonwhy (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of major would be filling large venues as the headline artist or a tour that brought the band into prominence in that country. Also, receiving non-trivial coverage in at least two important news sources discussing the tour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the media outlets cited as a news source for the article is the Telegraph newspaper out of Calcutta India. This outlet is the second largest in the country of India as cited in the following Wikipedia article. It has a readership of 1.2 million + ^[1] Here is an additional stories from The Telegraph mentioning the Difference United performances on one of the groups two India tours. ^[2] Another cited source is the Curierul National which is a national Romanian newspaper distrubuted from the nations capital of Bucharest. ^[3] In addition the press link provided above contains most of the major papers in the city of Shillong India as indicated by ^[4] in the print media section. [32] The press items are in the bottom album titled "Press".

Myreasonwhy (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ "The Telegraph Newspaper Calcutta Wikipedia". https://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
^ "Telegraph India Difference United Additional Article". http://www.telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
^ "Curierul National Wikipedia Article". https://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
^ "Shillong India Wikipedia Article". https://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Do you understand the meaning of "fluff piece"? The article in The Telegraph, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070330/asp/northeast/story_7581715.asp is not "non-trivial" and the concerts it describes, a series of free, open-air performances, certainly are trivial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The chart they have charted on is not a major one like Billboard. The sources are all fluff pieces or unreliable content like Reverbnation or YouTube. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McIntyre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable outside of industry publications. All references are to the Debian sources. If people want this to stay, then perhaps they need to provide some damn better sources fast. Otherwise, this needs to go. Non notable and **** poor referencing. Safiel (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Please note that you are expected to make a reasonable effort to find reliable sources before listing an article for deletion. A quick web search turned up a couple of good-looking sources. I didn't find a ton to indicate notability hence the weak keep. -Iago Qnsi 13:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did make a good search for sources prior to nominating. The links you give don't look so good to me. A blog and an opinion piece. No actual news story. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. With all due respect, I will maintain my delete position. Safiel (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete "Big in Debian". We need some comment from outside the tent, before we start passing WP:N. If he's becoming "the face of Debian" for some conferences or what have you that are broader than Debian, then that would count - but I'm not seeing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a fan of the Debian project, but I really don't understand how anyone could think this article satisfies WP:NOTABILITY. The only reason this article exists is because Steve was once the Debian Project Leader, but that is not enough to be notable - it is Debian and its management hierarchy that is the notable thing here, not the individual. To satisfy WP:NOTABILITY, there needs to be significant coverage of McIntyre and his work (not the Debian project, but the man himself), and that coverage needs to be from secondary sources independent of the Debian project, and the coverage can not be simply covering events or news (like his election). This article fails WP:NOTABILITY on all of those accounts. Of the two new sources suggested above by IagoQnsi, one is a regurgitated press release covering a news event (the Debian election), and the other is a very short interview. The news event does not satisfy notability. The interview might, but there is no way that one single interview could be classed as "significant coverage". One final quote from Notability: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." In the seven years this article has existing, it has failed to expand beyond the "few sentences" stage. As McIntyre is no longer Debian Project Leader, and hasn't been for four years, it is highly unlikely that any new sources are going to appear that discuss him, his life, or his work. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:37, 16 April 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. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources, it seems. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phunckateck Communications[edit]

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

Obscure "collective" (more like an amorphous group) with horrible sourcing. Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I posted a (second) PROD notice on the article today (not noticing the first one) and it was taken down. The person who removed it posted to the talk page saying that they, and others, had been listing references which noted the collective's significance. I see only one reference site (used four times) which is nothing but a database. Nothing signifying why the collective is notable as opposed to simply in existence. Since the first PROD notice, they've had nearly two weeks to make this article better but all it has become is a directory, which Wikipedia is not. The article fails notability standards under either WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what Orange Mike has against this page, but I'll address his concerns. He said there is only one reference site. I count over ten - from print like The Knowledge Magazine reference, to several interviews with memebers, and other sources around the web. While I'll admit the references could be better included in the article and have their usage footnoted, that is hardly a reason for deletion. As far as "Nothing signifying why the collective is notable as opposed to simply in existence" - I don't understand this complaint when there is clearly laid out section titled "Significance and Influence" with numerous examples and points. I never got a notice of the first PROD, but someone else who clearly agrees with me addressed those concerns.Thedjchewie (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually that was me that said that there was really only one reference site, which there was: Discogs. So I looked at the references that were added recently to the "Significance and Influence" section that you mention. There are currently six references used in that section. Number 1, the Civic bulletin board which copy/pasted the article from a defunct magazine site, has basically a passing mention of Phunckateck. Basically their existence is confirmed but the article isn't about them, it's about something else, Drum and Bass essentially. The second, the Facebook posting in which I don't even see the word Phunckateck mentioned. Third, the Billboard magazine jpg which I can barely read but again seems to be more about UFO! and making passing mentions of Phunckateck. I could be wrong about this. It's hard to see. Fourth, again another passing mention which is more about UFO! and Drum and Bass than it is about Phunckateck. And then five and six are the same Civic bulletin board and Billboard magazine again. I just don't see the coverage of Phunckateck itself which justifies calling them notable. UFO! might well be notable enough for an article but for Phunckateck, it's just WP:TOOSOON. Dismas|^(talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the majority of the article talks specifically about Drum N Bass and not the collective themselves. Discogs.com is not a reliable source because it is based on user-submitted content. Also, thousands of mixtapes, songs and albums are released every day by unknown people but a release alone is not notable unless it charts or receives independent coverage. There is nothing in the referencing about specific releases nor about the collective itself in any kind of detail. Simply releasing material and existing is not notable. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excuse me if I am not posting this information correctly, it's my first time. I would like to clarity that Phunckateck is the sum of its members. Meaning that the articles referenced do contain mentions of Phunckateck but the article's content relates to the members individual contributions and achievements as members of the Phunckateck collective. Individual references should be considered as contributions to the overall significance of Phunckateck. As UFO! is one of the founding members and is also still quite active as an artist/DJ/producer, his efforts would be more prominent in the general media coverage of this type of music. Furthermore, There is reference to a Phunckateck VIP remix that was contracted by Dieselboy, a very influential DJ in the genre. Major editing of the page was finally submitted just this morning so I'm not sure if some of these issues were addressed or not. If you can suggest any specific copy edits or other ways to help improve the page, that would be very helpful.99.7.8.22 (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply - I'm sorry, 99.7, but it doesn't work that way. If there are not articles in reliable sources that substantially discuss Phunckateck Communications as a named entity, then there is no subject matter notable enough to sustain an encyclopedia article. Phunckateck can't derive notability from the notability of persons who belong(ed) to it or are/were associated with it: "notability is not contagious". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is not how I read WP:BAND. Criterion #6 specifically says that an ensemble may derive notability from multiple notable members. Note that I am not currently arguing Keep or Delete. To qualify under WP:BAND #6, we would need to establish for one that this is a performing ensemble in its own right, rather than a looser confederation or group of friends, and of course that multiple members are indeed themselves notable (and that they are actual members rather than associates; "rumored" doesn't cut it here). If those are established, I would consider it a "keep" per that criterion. — Gwalla | Talk 03:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
reply As I said above, UFO! may be notable enough for an article but the collective doesn't seem to be. Dismas|^(talk) 03:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet the criteria at WP:BAND; lacks multiple notable members (and even UFO! is debatable), international tours, etc. Doesn't appear to be notable in its own right. Barefooted chick (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Higher Education in Newark[edit]

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

The individual institutions are certainly notable. The very loose consortium is another matter. It's only possible notable project is University Heights Science Park; if so, an article should be written about it. The high school long pre-existed the consortium--the connection is that it moved into a new building in science park.

Another highly promotional article accepted from AfC. (I've been concentrating on these lately, in the hope of raising standards there.) DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not support development of the article to cover the Science Park initiative, to be a combo article about CHEN the consortium and its projects, which apparently include the Science Park and the high school? This could be advocated at the Talk page of the article. With links to other articles about science parks, with possibly inviting other editors to help develop it. The article does not seem promotional, it is not promoting anything commercial anyhow. Is the goal with this AFD to get rid of the article or to spur development? It seems intimidating to AFD it, and it kinda seems wrong to AFD it when the nominator acknowledges there is a worth topic within it (the science park) that could simply be developed further. --do ncr am 15:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So, with no one else commenting, to be consistent with my own comment, i !vote Keep to resolve this AFD. --do ncr am 01:38, 20 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry E. Coben[edit]

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

Promotional article for at best a borderline notable lawyer. Contain the usual contents for an advertisement: A list of cases where he obtained large sums of money, a photo of him counseling a client, suitably blurred to preserve anonymity, minor awards, placement in lists of "top lawyers.", various puffery at every opportunity. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only hint of notability is he wrote some books, but there's no indication that those books themselves have been deemed to be important enough, even taken as an aggregate, to justify notability of the author. Even if so, it just serves as a WP:COATRACK to have the article be a Wikipedia-sponsored ad for the lawyer. TJRC (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's possible that with judicious digging through independent sources, a case could be made for Coben as a notable lawyer for a history of big personal injury wins [33] and his involvement in the NFL concussions lawsuits, e.g. [34][35][36] The current article doesn't make that case, however, and as DGG observes it is overwhelmed by advertising content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 16 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asathal[edit]

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

There are no citations for this article (there should be a citation proving that this is a remake of the film Three Men and a Baby) and no plot summary for the film - just stating that the film is a South India Tamil film released in 2001 and is a remake of Three Men and a Baby is unsuitable. There should be a plot summary for this article. WikiEditorNL (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lack of a plot summary is not a valid reason for deletion. This article needs improvement, certainly (for example, it is not a remake of Three Men and a Baby). But it is a major Tamil film release by an award-winning director, and it's not difficult to find reviews of the film to use as sources for a better article: [37][38] Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Past edits have been poorly written, with zero information on what the film is about. 142.134.220.92 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleaned up article. Editor 2050 (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – A regular feature film featuring prominent cast members. Looks well sourced now —Vensatry _(Ping) 15:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to March Air Reserve Base. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Flight[edit]

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

As far as I know, and with the help of Google, Dragon Flight doesn't exist. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and redirect. It exists,[39] it's just several levels of detail below what our articles currently describe or what notability supports. Dragon Flight is the air show demonstration team that is part of the March Field Aero Club. But we don't have an article for that, either. I'd suggest slightly expanding March Air Reserve Base#March Field Airfest to mention the Aero Club (and, possibly, the demonstration team), and then redirecting to whatever section name that target winds up with after the expansion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found absolutely no independent reliable-source coverage about Dragon Flight, or about its parent the March Field Aero Club (which appears to be a flight school). So a freestanding article is out of the question. The name is not unique (see Dragonflight as well as various books [40] [41], organizations [42], video games [43], etc.) so I think a redirect is inappropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. It exists, contrary to nomination statement, and consistent with comments above. For another example source, see this. The fact that other usages of "Dragon Flight" might be wikipedia-notable suggests that the redirect could be labelled a {{Redirect with possibilities}}, i.e. that it could become a disambiguation page in the future. --do ncr am 10:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to March Air Reserve Base. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:08, 21 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism Concern[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of notability, reads like an ad, possible COI based on 2010 dispute with the article's creator; I previously nominated for a speedy 4 years ago. R3ap3R (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First time I nominated AfD, it appears that consensus was DELETE but it wasn't done. R3ap3R (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, R3ap3R, are you disclosing that you have a COI, from your previous involvement? --do ncr am 10:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that the creator of the article seems to work for Tourism Concern. R3ap3R (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the AFD nomination and my first glance at the article, I wondered if the nonprofit had been active in 2010 but faded away. However there is recent 2014 actions, report in the news when i browse in Google news. I see that references have been added to the article since this AFD started. I just added another 2014 reference and edited some more. Notability seems clearly established. --do ncr am 10:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the current reflist and my own brief search I found more than enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:GNG. I agree that it could use some work to tone down the prose, but it's not egregious enough or pervasive enough to delete. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:07, 20 April 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 Karl T. Hirsch. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Whore[edit]

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

Film appears to fail WP:FILM. There is one mention of the film in the Baltimore City Paper[44] , however, everything else doesn't pass muster for reliable secondary sources. Perhaps others will discuss something hiding somewhere, and then we can totally improve the article. SarahStierch (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't seeming to be much more than someone's personal film that can't even satisfy WP:GNG and probably doesn't need an article here. Ducknish (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karl T. Hirsch. I found enough to justify an article for the director and we can just redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minas Morgul[edit]

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

The article apparently fails WP:GNG because the third party works cited are too in universe. If this is the case this article has no reason to exist. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete: It may be possible to preserve some of the content of this article in more all-encompassing articles, but I don't believe the sources currently presented establish that the subject is significant in its own right. If the sources do include discussion of the subject's significance out-of-universe, the article should be retooled to discuss that. In any case, as evidenced at the article's talk page, I would be happy to see the article improved to dispell my concerns. DonIago (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dab page: This title apparently also refers to a LotR song, as well as an album. Some of the content could be merged to one of a host of LotR articles, but most likely should be sent to an appropriate Wikia wiki. At any rate, this article is very crufty, and is unlikely to be otherwise. Therefore, the article does not belong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me. A significant site within one of the most influential franchises in the history of fantasy literature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable being covered in detail in numerous sources such as Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia and The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth. Andrew (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are exactly the kinds of sources that I don't think demonstrate notability. I'd be more interested in seeing sources which aren't already dedicated to discussing Middle Earth-related material. DonIago (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may make it an important topic in the Tolkien universe (and thus almost surely there should be a mention somewhere, and it should probably have an article on a Wikia wiki), but outside of the fiction, is there really anything? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Marriage in Islam. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wali mujbir[edit]

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

While the topic is mentioned in a reliable source, it seems to ONLY be mentioned in that source - I checked several traditional manuals of Muslim law including Al-Muhalla, Nayl al-Awtar, Bulugh al-Maram and a few modern books taking historical surveys of sharia literature (but without Wiki articles) and I have not found this term at all, nor is there such an article on Arabic Wikipedia.
Now this isn't about forced marriage in the Muslim world - that obviously exists and is addressed in Forced marriage and Marriage in Islam, both of which already contain the single reliable source for this article. This specific topic on its own, though, fails WP:SIGCOV as one mention in one book, even a reliable one, isn't significant coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being mentioned in another encyclopedia is usually good grounds for notability, but if this cannot be verified elsewhere, perhaps it was improperly transliterated? Can an Arabic speaker confirm this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "wali mujbir" (Arabic: ولي مجبر) is found e.g. in "Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures: Family, Law and Politics" edited by Suad Joseph, Afsāna Naǧmābādī, page 394, published by Brill Academic Publisher in 2005 (Brill being THE high quality publisher in the field of Islamic studies!). For a person who is familiar with classical shari'a there can be no doubt, that "wali mujbir" is well known terminus technicus of Islamic law! The transliteration is totally correct. I see the request for deletion rather as an act of vandalism by someone, who doesn't like the fact, that forced marriage and the term for it is a substantial and integral part of traditional Islamic law. --Metron (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metron: As I clarified on your talk page after notifying you about this, I didn't mean it personally and hoped there were no hard feelings. You have absolutely no basis for surmising about my personal motivations - especially when I took extra time to clarify that the goal, whether I'm right or wrong, is to improve the site. I also don't think you quite understand Wikipedia:Vandalism because your accusation here is so out of line that it borders on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please stick to the topic at hand and avoid guessing about what your fellow Wikipedians might or might not be motivated by. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just googling around one will find plenty of evidence for the term wali mujbir (English and e.g. Bahasa Malaysia transliteration), wali mudjbir (French and e.g. Bahasa Indonesia transliteration), wali mudschbir (German transliteration) or (Arabic: ولي مجبر or with article الولى المجبر ) or the abstract Arabic term ولاية الاجبار (wilayat al-ijbar) . If someone is able to read Arabic one will also find the whole spectrum of discussion about the term and the problem. One will also be confronted with the widespread denial by Muslims and also by Westerners that there is coercion in Islamic marriage. In view of these facts is difficult to believe, that a person who did some research about it just didn't find other reliable sources. What other motives could there be to delete the article "wali mujbir"? --Metron (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way MezzoMezzo claims to speak Arabic on Level 4 – Full professional proficiency! --Metron (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metron, I just ran another search on the term in Arabic and I am finding a lot of links on Wali when I search for wali mujbar (two different things of course), and the hits I'm getting for the actual term wali mujbar are discussion forums. There also isn't an article for this on Arabic Wikipedia and I speak neither German nor Malay.

That doesn't mean the term isn't out there - I just can't find it. Everybody can possibly be wrong, but I don't know why you're reacting this way and accusing a total stranger of rather negative things. And I did mention several sources of traditional Islamic law above and I didn't find it. What traditional Islamic law books did you find it in? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect. A Google Books search suggests that this term is probably notable, but notability like verifiability is a threshold test to inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion. There's just not enough here for a standalone article and the very fact that the discussion, above, is happening suggests that readers aren't going to be coming here to search for that term. Once you strip out what's already covered, and covered better, in Forced marriage and Marriage in Islam, this is little more than a dictionary definition. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per WP:NAD. Its mention in an encyclopedia indicates there is some signifance to the term but it still does not meet the threshold for a stand alone article per WP:NOTABILITY .-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 16 April 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 Kelly Rowland. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist: the Very Best of Kelly Rowland[edit]

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

A non-notable release. Practically every single artist signed to Sony Music has had one of these released for them. Very few chart. A single mention by Allmusic does not qualify for WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG generally → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, actual compilation work released by major publisher with good among of reception. — Cirt (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is a single mention by Allmusic notable per WP:GNG. There is nothing specific about the album other than its compilation and no coverage about chartings or cultural impact per WP:NALBUMS→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 14:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the album is merely mentioned in AllMusic. The album didn't chart, I can't find any reviews that cover it. I'd say mention it in her discography and delete this one, with a redirect. SarahStierch (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kelly Rowland. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International JKD Comparison[edit]

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

On notability grounds. It is hard to understand exactly what this is but it appears to be a school/style of JKD that has yet to be established. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability demonstrated--Teo Pitta (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As best I can tell, this is about an upcoming seminar at the Long Beach Internationals at the end of July. I can find no sources that show this seminar is notable or has any significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Deletion nom, keep/merge/redirect arguments, all with valid points. I'm closing as no consensus after 20 days with a recommendation to continue discussion of a potential merge ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cabela's Big Game Hunter: Pro Hunts[edit]

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

Delete per WP:GNG. Some of the sources added are not reliable: FPSPresitge.com, GameVicio (which is just user-submitted news), and TrueAchievements appears to be user-submitted news as well. None offer significant coverage beyond reposting screenshots that were issued in a press release. Odie5533 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three sources out of the seven currently listed may not be reliable, but the article should not be deleted just because of it since the others are. Although, I will remove said sources and/or replace them with others. Cheat2win (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the game may not be notable enough for an article. Perhaps instead, we could start a new article at Cabela's Big Game Hunter that would discuss the entire Big Game Hunter series including the latest Pro Hunts game? Alternatively (or additionally), we could have a Cabela's video games article that would describe each of the different Cabela's series in detail, including the Big Game Hunter series. As it stands, we sort of have a bunch of really short articles about each game which doesn't serve the readers well. And many of the games are not notable enough for their own articles, even though some do currently have articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with making such article, like you said, which is similar to how the Deer Hunter series is being handled. Maybe a Cabela's video games would be indeed the better option. Cheat2win (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cabela's or List of Cabela's video games (no need for a new article). That list could stand to be expanded with details of the games not notable enough for their own articles. Stalwart111 06:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect somewhere, possibly Cauldron (video game company) or one of the targets above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internews Europe[edit]

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

They certainly think thery're important, but I cnanot see that anyone else does, or at least has been willing to say so in sources we can rely on.,

Even if such could be found, so much of the article is so self-congratulatory that it really needs to be removed as promotional; there would be almost nothing left to use if a rewrite were attempted. WEe need to discourage this sort of article.

It was, like hundreds of its kind, accepted by AfC . DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of results in searches among secondary sources especially including Google Scholar. — Cirt (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 16 April 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 Robert Shvarc. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Schwarz (translator)[edit]

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

Not a notable person and unsourced JDDJS (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not on the German or Albanian Wikipedias. Vectro (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is also at WP:PNT [here for March 29] and at WP:RfD I forget when but the page then got moved to Robert Schwarz (translator) from Robert Schwarz - Die Fenster meiner Stadt. I said at PNT that this is a CV and should be deleted and no point translating it; I said at RfD that to have a German name in the title is not suited to the English WP. It's just a CV and needs to be deleted. Not notable. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing article Robert Shvarc, which has been around for a year now. It's the same person, but the Albanian transliteration is preferred. The person in notable in Albania for his contributions to translating German classics in the Albanian language, and there are several sources to confer him GNG. Also, the corresponding article in the Albanian wikipedia has been there since 2005: see [45]. --Korigjuesletrar (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a redirect to the pre-existing article Robert Shvarc. I have converted it to a redirect, as we do not need two articles on the same person. If the article title is contentious, someone should make a Request to Move. ~~I've also added him to the dab page at Robert Schwartz.~~ The name "Robert Schwarz" needs to be added to the article at Robert Shvarc, if someone can supply a source showing this alternative name for him. PamD 07:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally added him to the wrong dab page, and self-reverted: he is listed OK at the dab page at Robert Schwarz. PamD 07:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:44, 16 April 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. Closing as keep with no prejudice towards continued talk page discussion about the possibility of merging to Supercell (video game company). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Day[edit]

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

I have looked for independent sources to establish notability and have not been able to find them. The article was previously redirected to the company that produces it, but has been restored without any reliable independent sources. GB fan 00:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Supercell~~ Supercell (video game company). The game deserves a mention but that doesn't mean it is notable enough to get its own Wikipedia page. Vectro (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this is spam flavoured spam served with a side-serving of spam, with spam pudding to follow and with a spam-juice drink. Furthermore, there is clear evidence of campaigning to undo any deletions. Of course, this is just the tip of the spam-iceberg, as far as paid editing goes. There is a big problem with unnotable companies and unnotable apps/games, etc. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The company that produces this game (article actually at Supercell (video game company) if this closes for merge) is very clearly notable, but I think there may be enough independent coverage to support articles for their two flagship products as well. A cursory search finds a Gamezebo review and some coverage of its success in Japan, along with nontrivial mentions in mainstream media articles about Supercell (such as this Forbes article). In general, there is a problem with small companies attempting to use Wikipedia as push advertising for non-notable products, but I just don't think that's the case here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article just barely passes GNG (having two reviews), but more importantly, its business model has made it the #3 top grossing mobile game in the U.S. 1. Additionally, some sites, particularly Gamasutra, discuss the game's business model and gameplay casually as though readers ought to be familiar with the game. I think we'd do a disservice to our readers if we didn't have page for the game since it's such a huge hit and is thus a subject of discussion. There are two full reviews: GameZebo PocketGamer. Other coverage: CNET, Gamasutra 2 3 4. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Supercell. As it stands, this article doesn't have enough unbiased references. We can always split it out from Supercell later if it suddenly becomes the next Angry Birds. RomanSpa (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin's note to !voters: Please make it clear, if you are voting for redirect or merge to the company, that the target is Supercell (video game company). Supercell being something else entirely... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inspection of my earlier comment will reveal that I've already done that, but thanks for your note anyway. :-) RomanSpa (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Vectro (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this source notes, the game is very popular and profitable, 4th highest grossing app of 2013. There's substantial coverage of it and along with Cash of Clans it launched the parent company to a $2 billion or so valuation. A merge has certain disadvantages as the game would no longer be in the right categories. I also think it would unbalance the parent article, because to cover it properly would overweight that article to having a lot of coverage of this game when Clash of Clans is actually an even bigger success (and does have an article). It was the 3rd highest grossing app of 2013 if anyone is wondering.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A news article in International Business Times with a readership between 5-7 million, and read in 7 continents; I think it passes WP:GNG. I don't think a merge would be good for it either, as it negates the important fact that Supercell is making £30 Million/month for this game and Class of Clans from in-game purchases, and offers up the fact that a very large number of mobile gamers must have seen/played it, to make it to position 3/4 on the charts. Keep and expand. Easily passes WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 21:59 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Leupp[edit]

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

Honestly, except for maybe the guy who programmed E.T. or people who created extremely successful video games series (such as Shigeru Miyamoto, Satoshi Tajiri and Will Wright), I don't really think individual game programmers are notable. I don't really think either Atari Age or Giant Bomb are reliable sources. I previously PRODed the article, but the author removed it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any reliable source coverage. That said, there's nothing that inherently makes individual game programmers non-notable, if they've been written about then they're notable. FYI, Giant Bomb is a reliable source, but that part of their site isn't, if you take a look you'll notice it's actually a wiki, and the other source, even if reliable, doesn't really show that he is notable; it's just a directory listing. Sam Walton (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Samwalton9; there's little to set him apart from the vast expanses of game programmers without articles. Tezero (talk) 02:19, 17 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Reagan[edit]

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

Long standing article about a Bible scholar who seems to have been promoted with little basis across Wikipedia. The article on Lamb and Lion Ministries has recently been deleted. After removing a section that was not actually about him the article is now entirely unsourced (initially it seemed to be a substantial copy-paste from the Lamb and Lion website). I can't see any significant journalistic coverage about Reagan that would meet WP:GNG notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little if any coverage independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Levdr1lp / talk 06:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional unsourced BLP. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above points. Harsh (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disagree with above points DaPreacherMan43 (talk) 20:54, 22 April 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_Telegraph_Newspaper_Calcutta_Wikipedia-1] "The Telegraph Newspaper Calcutta Wikipedia". https://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[Telegraph_India_Difference_United_Additional_Article-2] "Telegraph India Difference United Additional Article". http://www.telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[Curierul_National_Wikipedia_Article-3] "Curierul National Wikipedia Article". https://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[Shillong_India_Wikipedia_Article-4] "Shillong India Wikipedia Article". https://en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]