Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 April	25 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. slakr^\ talk / 11:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Doctor[edit]

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

non-notable product of non-notable company in the adjacent AfD. Promotional too, for the attempt to try to write multiple articles where even one would be dubious is an attempt to gain as much coverage as possible, otherwise known as spamming. The CNN article is basically a human interest press release. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:PRODUCT. Also WP:NOTPROMO. ///EuroCarGT 01:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 01:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough to establish notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:03, 2 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Innovations[edit]

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

An extremely minor company; the sources are unabashed press releases and directory entries. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the criterias at WP:NCORP, search results only comes up with the disc scratch product and no relevant company information. ///EuroCarGT 01:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 01:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 01:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 01:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ameri ichinose[edit]

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

Japanese porn performer with no claim to notability beyond an apparently discredited rumor of a romance with a pro athlete. Repeatedly speedy/BLPPROD-deleted, then salted, but recreated under ersatz capitalization. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither actions nor coverage raise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sadly not notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:33, 30 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 17:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Foster[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as the Gay Erotic Video Awards is not a "well-known and significant industry award". An internet search reveals no indication that this individual passes WP:GNG Finnegas (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The subject here may have won an award for "Best Bottom", which, as far as I can tell, does not appear to be a major or "significant" award at the Gay Erotic Video Awards. Whether or not the Gay Erotic Video Awards are a "well-known industry award" is unknown to me. Guy1890 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 27 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 17:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zyklon (Morey's Piers)[edit]

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

This roller coaster is a mass-produced roller coaster. There are several roller coasters that have the exact same layout/characteristics of this roller coaster. A search on Google and Yahoo returned no reliable sources regarding the roller coaster that could be included to support the notability of the topic. Dom497 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Themeparkgc, McDoobAU93, Astros4477, and JlACEer: Just thought you guys might want to pitch in your thoughts.--Dom497 (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. There's nothing here about why this particular version of this design is notable. In fact, there's almost nothing here except for a prose version of the infobox. --McDoob AU93 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable article created by banned user. Andrew³²⁷ 04:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree it was started by a user who is indeed now banned, WP:AGF suggests that shouldn't be a factor in its potential deletion at this point. The ban came after the article was created and after the previous AFD resulted in "keep". --McDoob AU93 21:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that an article should not be deleted merely because its author was later banned, but this particular article is also non-notable for the reasons discussed here in greater detail. Andrew³²⁷ 04:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pinfari built over 200 Zyklon coasters. This is just one of 200 small portable coasters — nothing notable about that.—JlACEer (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -Pete (talk) 23:41, 28 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 Jackson Heights, Queens. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

82nd Street Academics[edit]

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

My research shows that this nonprofit fails our Wikipedia guidelines for organizations (but maybe I'm wrong). SarahStierch (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I think this organization does not pass WP:NGO. Jim Carter ^(talk) 00:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 00:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 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 01:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google search yields sufficient results, e.g. this Times Ledger story about afterschool daycare cut being protested, that I think notability is evident. --do ncr am 13:08, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The reference supplied by Doncram above picks out this preschool as simply one of many caught up in budgetary cutbacks. I haven't seen anything that singles out this one as particularly special even in NYC itself, much less worldwide. Indeed, it is hard to find anything in the thicket of the usual directory and on-line review hits which nearly any such institution is covered by. If there were real notability here it wouldn't be so hard to find traces of it; as it is, there's no hint in the article that there's anything about it which would attract unusual notice. Mangoe (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jackson_Heights,_Queens#Community - the material can be sourced, but does not reach general notability due to lack of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 21 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jackson_Heights,_Queens#Community. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:34, 27 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). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Al-malak[edit]

Qasim Al-malak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · ^{eletion/Qasim_Al-malak Stats})

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

Only 1 link goes to him-and its to a page made by the same person. With just 2 credits-not sure if notable enough. Wgolf (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination seems slightly weak. The fact that an article is effectively an orphan is rarely if ever a good argument for deletion - and as to the number of credits, the Swedish Wikipedia page for the subject gives seven credits and, if I could make head or tail of the Arabic page, I suspect it would prove to contain quite a few more than that. Of course, this does not immediately establish notability, but it does mean that we should be judging the subject by his full filmography and critical reaction to that - including critical reaction in Arabic. Any Arabic-speakers here? PWilkinson (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Looking on the IMDB for him-couldn't find an exact name but it is very possible he has a different name on there as I found variations of it-unfortunately I'm not sure which could be him. It was a tough call either way. Wgolf (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two leading role credits passes NACTOR rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I checked out the Arabic article and searched around on Arabic sites, and he's notable for sure, not least because he's played several leading roles in marquee TV shows on channels like Al-Iraqiya and Al Sharqiya.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:55, 29 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Discontinuity Guide[edit]

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

While this book satisfies the threshold criteria for WP:NBOOK there are no reliable sources that it passes any of the other criteria. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's widely used as a citation in other articles; it is therefore of value to know what kind of publication those articles are citing, what its background was, etc. That makes the article valuable to include here. Jheald (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... being a citable source doesn't always guarantee notability. We've had a lot of subjects that could be used as a RS (books, authors, professors, etc) but that in and of itself doesn't always mean that it would pass notability on that guideline alone. We'd really still need coverage in secondary, reliable sources in some context to help back up claims that this is especially noteworthy and exemplary in the field of series guides. In many cases if that doesn't exist, we'll list the book in a "further reading" section or in a "List of Doctor Who books" type article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found some reviews and mention of it, so this does pass notability guidelines. However the article really, REALLY needs to be cleaned and re-written, as the current version is pretty much unsourced and reads like something you'd find on a fan wikia. This is fine for fan wikias, but you've got to remember that you have to not only be able to source things but you also have to be able to keep the tone neutral and encyclopedic. It just comes across a little fannish and it also doesn't really put things across in layman's terms. While it's more likely that people who will come to the page will be at least passingly familiar, the layout does sort of read like it'd alienate someone who isn't aware of the series. It doesn't need a lot of cleanup, just some tweaks here and there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The format utilised in the book (Roots/Goofs/Dialogue Triumphs & Disasters/Fashion victims etc) has been adopted by the BBC for their official 'Classic Who' website's episode guide - each entry includes a verbatim (and attributed) 'Bottom Line'... Example: The Daleks. 217.33.79.34 (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure whether the BBC having reprinted the book's contents on its Doctor Who website is an argument for or against Wikipedia having an article on the book. But it does show that the book was sufficiently well-regarded that the keepers of the subject's copyright were willing to give it an official imprimatur by hosting it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially given the cleanup begun by Tokyogirl. Clearly meets criterion N1. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability. One of several unofficial guidebooks. The authors are notable, and information on this can be included on their own articles. 41.135.172.4 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep - according to the WP page linked, it only HAS to meet one of the criteria. Even the nominator sa\ys it does, so I have no idea why this is even here. 94.195.107.134 (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBOOK states that passing the threshold criteria is not sufficient for notability. Whether it passes any of the other criteria is up for debate here. I am still to be convinced. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google Scholar shows this book is cited by at least 5 academic works.[1] 3 of the 5 are "Doctor Who"-specific. The 4th is DiPaolo's book War, politics and superheroes: Ethics and propaganda in comics and film. The 5th is Bramwell's work Pagan themes in modern children's fiction: green man, shamanism, earth mysteries. 2 non-Who-specific academic citations aren't much but they are something. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this turns out to be "delete" I would much prefer a redirect with the edit history preserved. The problem is that I can't think of the best place to redirect it to. Any target would have to at least mention this book or it wouldn't be a viable target. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the cleanup by Tokyogirl. Bondegezou (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in the event this article is kept, can someone with time and sufficient WP:RS clean up the 'season 6B' section. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:58, 28 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. Per consensus, we will consider this a soft delete without prejudice to re-creation if the station is actually ever built. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coopersale Halt railway station[edit]

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

(Reason given by nominator: Station never existed & no published plans either) 109.154.43.47 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough, although (as noted elsewhere) it should more properly be called something other than a “Station”. Useddenim (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no station here according to the EOR's website. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. The steps at WP:AFDHOWTO part II were not followed; in particular, the nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion. This means that the page is not recognised as an AFD by bots, and so is not showing at either Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 22 (when the article was tagged) or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 23 (when this page was created). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the {{subst:afd2}} to the top of this page on behalf of the person who added the {{Article for deletion/dated}} to the article; this should cause the bots to pick it up. Timestamp is copied from that edit. The nominator still needs to provide a valid reason for deletion, per WP:DELETE: I cannot fill it in for them, since their edit summaries leave no clue. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not possible to reproduce verbatim the reasoning given on the talk page of the article in question? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no station or published plans for one. The text in the page also has many errors, e.g. it claims there is a station. Mere speculation of a station is no basis for an article. See also talk page of above article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.85.176.40 (talk) 13:21, 24 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 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation - as the Epping Ongar Railway article states (and from personal experience), there is no Coopersale Halt. no objection to recreation iff a halt is built. Mjroots (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreate. It doesn't seem this is or was an actual station. If it turns out it is, was or will be, then it can be recreated.--Oakshade (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreate – it never existed, so it may not be notable, but something may be built in the future. Epicgenius (talk) 18:38, 29 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 17:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Fedora[edit]

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

A clear case of WP:BLP1E. A kid made a video and it went viral... no evidence of any lasting significance. SmartSE (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious BLP1E. TheCascadian 19:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ..... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there was ever notability for one event, this was it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a BLP1E. Finnegas (talk) 14:46, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mollana[edit]

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

No indication of the notability of this software, no secondary sources cited in the article. Phill24th (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also couldn't find any sources apart from descriptions on download sites. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability; a search turned up no significant RS coverage; created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:45, 28 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 List of Italian films. Several of the arguments also mention that additional actions should be taken either before or after deletion/redirection; thus rounded to redirect; WP:RFD can be used later if needed slakr^\ talk / 05:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian films of the 1910s[edit]

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

as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_films_of_the_2010s these pages are a category (or disambiguation) masking as an article.

Also includes

Redirect to List of Italian films. Just make sure you remove the links from the Italian film template after this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Be bold and do as per the British films. No need to bring this to AfD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the british ones were all deleted. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin should have really read the discussion first. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spudgfsh: Please can you link all of the year lists on List of Italian films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd included all of them. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not. The List of Italian films only redirects to the decades. Please merge all lists onto that page. In future you might do that with the other decade pages and merge and redirect rather than coming to AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any justification for a redirect.Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No harm in this list at all. Wgolf (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The thing is it isn't a list, it's a dab page. What Spudg is getting at is that we don't need multiple dab pages and it's redundant to have them when they can all be listed on one page at List of Italian films. I believe he's right. Obviously if this actually contained a film list like some of the others do yet to be split by decade we wouldn't want to get rid of it. The only alternative really would be to redirect to an article like Italian cinema in the 1910s. In future Spudg, just list the full dab on the main page, shut off the links in the list side bars and ask me to db author the decade lists, it would make things a lot easier.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I don't see any point in having these as individual DAB pages, which as Dr. Blofeld points out is essentially what they are. Redirect rather than delete in case of incoming links. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and turn into categories -- RoySmith (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, largely per Dr. Blofeld's comment just above. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed as articles. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (after chasing any use not from the templates) or redirect, leaving the categories out. (Some editors want appropriate categories on redirects. They do not seem appropriate, here.) They are only index files, having no independent content. Neither does List of Italian films, which should probably be changed to Category:Lists of Italian films by year. (There is some content in List of British films, namely the collection of 1889-1919 into one article, although I would have little objection to the deletion of that article, either.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Italian films per Dr. Blofeld. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:40, 8 May 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 The Flintstones#Characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppy (The Flintstones)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ureferenced article and only external link points to a fansite.

Google search provides no links within the first three pages of results that meet WP:GNG, instead providing links to fan wikis, YouTube videos and video game FAQs/walkthroughs.

The character appeared in a game for the Nintendo Entertainment System, but this does not meet GNG #1. AldezD (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The_Flintstones#Characters (or break that section out into a new characters page with all these less-notable characters). There are a few sources briefly mentioning the character and various merchandising, but no in-depth coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge-as said above-I don't even remember this character in the show at all! Wgolf (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 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 delete. WP:G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best of 2013 Awards[edit]

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

Possible hoax, as I can find no reliable sources of these awards at all. The only link I found was a link to Twitter, where I don't think it's a Google or notable project at all. good888 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a blatant hoax. Now being considered for speedy deletion.--Laun chba ller 17:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Self-published source fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails WP:V and there's no way Google is reducing itself to the pop culture ground wore down by teen mags like J-14 and Tiger Beat. Nate • (chatter) 00:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Per everyone else, and it also creates SERIOUS BLP violations. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:33, 25 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. Of the two reasons given by the nominator, one has been addressed and the other is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thani Oruvan[edit]

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

Falls under too soon, from what I can tell this is not even being filmed yet-also the intro is a bit too promotional Wgolf (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Thani Oruvan

Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3) through its ongoing production and filming receiving the requisite coverage under that guideline... before and after it was titled. Sorry Wgolf, but "The shoots of the film have been done in places such as Mahabalipuram, Bangalore and Hyderabad so far" and we can allow this new sourced stub article to remain and grow and be improved through regular editing.... that is, unless someone convinces me that a merge and redirect to filmmaker M. Raja is a solution that somehow better serves the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a source which says that the principal photography has started.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-for some reason I didn't see it say that it started-it just felt a bit too promotional though as well. Wgolf (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I found that citation and added to the article through some minor post-nomination clean-up.[2] I would offer that a sense of any article feeling a "bit too promotional" would be a valid reason to tag it for editorial attention ( IE: {{tone}} ), but not necessarily one for calling for a flat-out deletion of something that could be corrected through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:28, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Nutrients[edit]

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

Old information NickyNik (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable and promotional; but the nomination does not make sense--why is "old information" a reason for deletion rather than improvement? DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator, NickyNik, is also the author of the article (and an SPA). There have been no other significant contributors to the article. Would this qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G7? --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Split in Duality[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book. Article written by the author. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A self-published book that doesn't seem to have attracted any media attention. Moswento ^talky 13:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable enough to merit its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Ziegler[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dance Moms. All reliable sources that mention Mackenzie do so in the context of Dance Moms, but she definitely doesn't have enough sourcing to support independent notability. Moswento ^talky 13:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, sounds like a good solution. Mabalu (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Comment On second thoughts, having just realised the subject is a child, and given the really strong arguments re: articles on questionably notable children on User:DGG's recent Eden Wood discussion, I question whether we should have this article at all. Mabalu (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not just questionably notable children, it's children whose borderline notability comes from being exploited by the entertainment industry in sexualized shows. We of course need an article about the show, and I can see including the childrens name in that article, But highlighting it with an article is a clear violation of child protection. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I'd like to draw your attention to Maddie Ziegler, which is another article about a child from Dance Moms. Maybe it should be nominated for deletion as well. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:12, 1 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdalhadi Alijla[edit]

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

Non-notable scholar. A PhD candidate, with some published articles, but no real indications of notability. Article was nominated once before and deleted in July 2013. I would almost consider a G4 speedy deletion, but enough time has passed that a re-review may be in order. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that he meets WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR. Of the three references currently in the article, 2 are primary sources and the third came up as untrusted for me but the URL suggests that it is primary as well. A quick search doesn't show any reliable independent sources. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable academic and writer. I couldn't find any good independent sources, and there is nothing in the article to suggest I will. Maybe later in his career, but not now. Moswento ^talky 13:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. As before. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no rational claim to notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 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 keep(withdrawn by nominator)(non-admin closure).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RadiumOne[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Of the three references, one is about the founder's criminal charges with only a passing reference to the company, one is a clear press release, and the third is a dead link. LukeSurl^{t c} 12:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think you've undersold the first source in the article. It's not about the criminal charges with a passing reference to the company, it's about the company with a passing reference to the criminal charges. I agree that the second (and actually, if you archive.org it, the third) is a press release. Some other sources that aren't about the criminal charges: AdAge, CMO, Bloomberg, B&T, The Next Web. Moswento ^talky 13:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has now been comprehensively edited by Tokyogirl79 and as a result is significantly improved. You may wish to withdraw this Afd as it looks as if notability has been established. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've removed the mentions of the charges entirely and found a lot of sources. What helps it is that it's listed in a few books as being one of the earliest/first examples of its type. The TechCrunch links are pretty suspect, although I did keep one of them, but they're sort of notorious for just re-writing press releases for some of their articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I'm happy for this to be withdrawn given Tokyogirl79's extensive edits. --15:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice amount of source coverage given in article at present. — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 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 redirect to Kadhalan (soundtrack). (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mukkabla[edit]

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

Not enough content, and only has one source. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kadhalan (soundtrack), which contains much of the same content already. I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this song to meet WP:NSONGS or warrant a standalone article. Gongshow talk 01:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to Kadhalan (soundtrack), the article doesn't seems to have enough sources to be an independent one.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:42, 27 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, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Colan[edit]

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

Non-notable bxer Peter Rehse (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had a lot of fights, but fails to meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO fails and it contains only two references which are not notable. Rinfoli {*Di§cu$$ with me"#} 10:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certanly isn't notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 13:35, 26 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Welch[edit]

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

Non notable boxer/trainer. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not notable based on the article's sources. Is being a member of the World Boxing Hall of Fame enough for notability? It isn't for fighters, but I don't know about for trainers.Mdtemp (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article is written is confusing to say the least. The reference link goes to his brother and he (the brother) was inducted into the World Hall of Fame not Chang Welch. Whether the Hall of Fame entry makes a difference I am also not sure but I probably would not haver nominated it if he had - benefit of the doubt and all that.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right--I went back and looked at the article and links more carefully. The only working link is for his brother.Mdtemp (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage or indication of notability. The article is poorly sourced and the existing link is for his brother, not him.Mdtemp (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played professionall football, normally considered an automatic pass. I'm accepting good faith on that data at this point so references would help for sure. And the article should be cleaned up. But those are all "editing" issues and not "deletion" issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of semi-pro football teams. Playing in the "Ohio League" doesn't sound the same as playing in the NFL. Yes I know some teams in the Ohio League jointed other teams to become part of a league that later became the NFL. However, I don't think that means all Ohio League players are automatically notable--especially without sources. Mdtemp (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was 1916-1918. The NFL didn't form until 1920. When the NFL did form, the "Akron Indians" had renamed themselves as the "Akron Pros" and were one of the four teams that met originally to form the NFL. They are a founding team.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the lack of sources is not just "an editing issue"--it's in direct conflict with WP:V and WP:RS. Papaursa (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually (and strangely) no. Verifiability states that the information can be verified, not necessarily that the sources of that verification are added to the article. That is what makes it an editing issue--the sources should be added.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NGRIDIRON and GNG. The Ohio League is not listed among the leagues the grant automatic notability and the article shows no significant coverage of him.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No supported claims of notability. Even if the claim of playing football for Akron is true, according to the article he was no longer playing for them when the NFL's predecessor league was formed. The claim for keeping the article appears to rest on the assumption that anyone who once played for a team that later became an NFL team is notable. That seems a stretch to me. Papaursa (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm afraid that is incorrect. The Ohio League was one of the predecessor leagues to the NFL. The Akron Pros article shows evidence that the minutes of the meeting to form the league were actually kept on stationary for the Akron Pros. Clearly this was one of the premiere professional teams in that time frame on the national level.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ohio League is not listed at WP:NGRIDIRON as being sufficient to show notability. In fact, NGRIDIRON clearly excludes playing for semi-pro teams, which is what the Akron Indians article says the team was when Welch supposedly played for them. Finally, the only reference of him is a one line mention in his brother's boxing biography at boxrec.com. That's at best a passing mention and I'm not sure boxrec can even be considered a reliable source for that purpose.Mdtemp (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where it was a semi-pro team during that time period. I'll concede the sourcing/reference comments because they are shaky at best.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we use the Wikipedia article it only says that the Indians started out semi-Pro and that the Aarkon Pros were professional. Not clear when the transition to professional occurred - at the name change or before. Just saying.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter makes a valid point about not really being able to tell when it went from semi-pro to pro (plus using WP itself as a source is frowned on). However, Mdtemp is also right about the Ohio League not granting automatic notability and there being no significant coverage of him at all, much less in reliable sources. There's certainly nothing that shows he was notable as a boxing trainer. Does a redirect to Suey Welch make any sense? Papaursa (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that "professional" football was extremely different in the early years than the later years. Many colleges used professional players against the rules (called "ringers" at the time). It was in 1892 when William Heffelfinger received the first professional payment on record for playing football, and that was kept secret until 1960.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with the fact that there's no evidence he even played for the Indians or meets NGRIDIRON or GNG? Because of the lack of coverage I don't think there's enough on him to bother with a redirect.Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 29 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} 15:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Clottey (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It appears he lost a fight for the WBO Africa welterweight title and I believe that's enough to meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While I'm not enamored of WP:NBOX, Clottey does meet it. Papaursa (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fought for a WBO Africa welterweight title which is sufficient to pass WP:NBOX. Finnegas (talk) 21:58, 29 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, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeVour Magazine[edit]

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

Relatively new magazine, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence provided or found that this publication has attained notability, either as a print publication or as a website. AllyD (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Honestly, I was hoping that reliable sources would eventually show up, but I guess not. I can't find anything on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 27 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 17:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BEYOOONLINE.COM[edit]

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

Promotional article about a reputation management company. I can't find anyone anywhere who has written about this company. The only online sources are press releases and advertising, and not many at that. It appears completely impossible to write a neutral article, based on reliable sources, as there are no such sources writing about the subject. Peripitus (Talk) 09:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The reliable sources listed in the article are about reputation management generally, not this specific company. The only online sources I could find are, like the nominator, press releases. Lacks significant coverage for a claim of notability. Moswento ^talky 09:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the one who previously had deleted this article as a proposed deletion, due to the same concerns raised again by the AfD nominator. The article creator later asked me to "review the article again" because they wanted it restored. Since proposed deletions can be restored on request, I restored the article. But I also warned the editor that the article was in danger of a second deletion via AfD. Those same warnings I gave the editor (promotional tone and a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources) are why I support deletion here. -- Atama頭 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I've asked the article to be restored, I started working on the reliable sources. Unfortunately it takes time, so I won't be able to add them all that quickly. My last request is the article to be completely removed since I am not able to do so as a creator, this should be addressed to a Wikipedia administrator. Once I have all the needed sources which meet the Wikipedia Guidelines, I will publish the original and improved content, including the sources. As I am reading, the article will be automatically deleted if nobody objects within a week. - Activeormguide (talk) 07:48, 29 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, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Star Dandenong Soccer Club[edit]

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

fails WP:FOOTYN. at best this team has played 4th division state league. but currently a 5th division side. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. A note regarding the nomination - failing WP:FOOTYN is not a valid reason for deletion. Hack (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, non-notable club. Giant Snowman 17:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor club playing well down the pyramid even at state level. No indication the club has ever taken part in any national competition. Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 30 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. Renominating this three weeks after the previous AfD was disruptive. Please don't do anything like that again. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vertcoin[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)

Last nomination ended in a no consensus. Article fails WP:GNG and does not attempt to even assert notability. Citation Needed | Talk 03:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong keep with trout - Has moved from 20 to 17 in Market Cap since last AfD. A second AfD should have waited at least a few months since this whole area is rapidly changing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Market Cap" is irrelevant toward Wikipedia's WP:GNG standard, which requires significant coverage from multiple independently-published reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Market Cap" could be a sign that many people are using the currency, therefore making it notable.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the number of people using it is also irrelevant toward Wikipedia's WP:GNG standard. We're not talking about Mirriam-Webster's definition of "notable" here, but about the term as described in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Agyle (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up I thought there may be exceptions, where something is notable but does not have reliable sources. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are exceptions for certain types of topics not covered in reliable sources, or never previously written about at all; entertainers with cult followings, or astronomical bodies visible to the naked eye, for example. Cryptocurrencies do not fall into any of the existing exceptions. Agyle (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The IBT source is good, but one brief source does not notability make. The only other things I could find were sources mentioned in the last nomination, namely the Daily Dot opinion piece and a few crypto blogs. Not enough to meet notability guidelines. Moswento ^talky 08:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:TROUT to the nominator for a nomination just 2 1/2 weeks after the previous discussion closed; little has changed in sourcing and forcing a re-discussion so soon is a waste of other editors' time. The article does assert significance as being one of the larger market cap coins and as innovative in the use of an ASIC-resistant mining process. Sources found:

IBT article, already in the WP article
Vertcoin Rockets Despite Market Weakness, from Altcoin Press
Vertcoin Developer Paul Bradley Talks Zerocoin, ASIC Resistance, and More from cryptocoins news
Interview with creator of ASIC-proof Vertcoin from Follow The Coin
Vertcoin Most ‘Active’ Coin from cryptocoins news

Sources 1,2 and 5 are independent and in enough depth for a marginal pass for notability. Given recent press, this coin is likely to get more notable over time. Sources 3 and 4 are interviews and not independent, but could be used to help build background in the article. The article is sourced, but could use more secondary sources, perhaps from this list. A marginally notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires independent reliable sources. AltCoin Press looks like the self-published blog of a guy called Greg Matthews. CryptoCoinsNews looks more solid, until you read the T&Cs, which state "CryptoCoinsNews can post sponsored stories paid by any party." So, potentially, we still just have one independent reliable source. Moswento ^talky 21:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per trout. Presumably nominated to ensure at least two cryptocurrencies are being nominated for deletion.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does "as per trout" mean something, or is this a facetious post that should be ignored? Agyle (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the comment that mentions a trout. Two and a half weeks seems very soon to be renominating for deletion. What may happen is this article gets deleted, then six months down the line it needs writing again. However, waiting six months may give a better indication of whether it subject will ever gain 'notability'.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Only one RS with significant coverage, from IBT, in my opinion. Mark viking, innovation and "market cap" are not part of Wikipedia's WP:GNG criteria, and I don't consider altcoinpress.com, followthecoin.com, or cryptocoinsnews.com to meet WP:RS:

Altcoinpress is essentially a one-person blog (all front-page stories by Greg Matthews).
Cryptocoinsnews has very one-sided articles, dubious stories based on rumors, and will post ads as stories for money.
Followthecoin promotes specific cryptocurrencies in a way that casts doubt on its objectivity as an independent news organization.

––Agyle (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that innovation and "market cap" established notability, only that they were assertions of significance. On Wikipedia, these are different concepts. See for instance WP:A7 --Mark viking (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you meant they were relevant to notability, or reasons to keep the article. Agyle (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (Changed from weak keep, then redirect) A few sources exist for the article, although it really is borderline. Failing a keep, I would recommend redirecting this page to the Cryptocurrency article, which gives some very limited coverage to the vertcoin. In light of more additional sources being found, I change my vote to neutral. I really do not have a strong opinon one way or another at this point Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Eagle, please list reliable sources you found. Currently only one article is cited. Agyle (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just cut straight to the point: this is notable enough for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure it deserves its own article. Preferably, I'd suggest merging this into a List of cryptocurrencies article, but that one was redirected per a January 2014 deletion discussion. A merge anywhere else would give vertcoin undue weight. There are only two real options: keep or delete. I'm uncomfortable voting delete as there are sources for it (specifically the IBT and a DailyDot article[3]), so I don't see any other option besides a keep vote. If you can suggest a better solution, I would happily change my vote. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit, I don't consider the Daily Dot piece reliable; its style is informal and non-neutral, like an editorial, and its URL contains "/opinion/", suggesting it's an opinion piece, which WP:RS says "are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

I agree keep & delete are the two main options, though deleting is potentially temporary, pending more significant coverage. I also just created Draft:Vertcoin as a place to work on a future article, based on the current version, in the event the live article is deleted. A few crypto articles incubated in Draft: namespace until they had enough reliable sources (e.g., Auroracoin, now live, and Draft:NXT, which is not). Agyle (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's good enough for me. I'm changing my vote to a redirect. (The cryptocurrency article already covers all of the verifiable information for the vertcoin anyways, so it would be usable to redirect there). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A slight problem with a redirect is that cryptocurrency's current standard for whether to include cryptocurrencies in that table is whether they meet Wikipedia notability criteria. There are various opinions on which should be included, and the current approach is designed in part to keep it from being overrun by non-notable alt coins. However, some info could be merged elsewhere in the article, if it really is a verifiably unique and innovative approach. Agyle (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cryptocurency article, as it currently stands, contains information on the vertcoin. So long as it gets coverage within the article, I believe that a redirect from this article is justified. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate what Agyle said - if this article is deleted then Vertcoin will be removed from the 'table of cryptocurrencies' on the cryptocurrency article. The table is the only coverage of Vertcoin on that article. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed my vote to weak delete to reflect this. If it gets removed from the table, then a redirect would be pointless. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A 2014-04-24 BBC article contains a sidebar on Vertcoin and an enthusiast. Agyle (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete With one RS and a bunch of blogs and non-RS sources, it's most definitely not notable. It should've been deleted in the last discussion, there were more delete votes and most of the keep votes weren't at all based on Wikipedia policies. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Does not have significant coverage as per Wikipedia:GNG, is less significant than other cryptocurrencies which have already had their pages deleted, and this vote is currently being vote-bridgaded by members of the Vertcoin subreddit. see: (http://www.reddit.com/r/vertcoin/comments/244xve/lets_try_to_prevent_the_deletion_of_the_wikipedia/) --Bananaman321 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, but they seem to be more concerned with finding reliable sources and editing the article to meet notability requirements than rigging this AfD. Someone may want to drop them a link to the vertcoin draft and give them an explanation for why this articles been nominated. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who above voting keep are you accusing of vote rigging? I am familiar with all but one, and he has been around since 2010. I also have no problem whatsoever with any group of people whose goal is "providing better sources and writing it in a more neutral approach". After having reviewed other recent cryptocurrency AfDs, some of which went three or four times in a row without deletion, I am now certain this was AfDed for a second time way to soon. Changing to "Strong keep" with trout. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Less significant than other cryptocurrencies", and "significance" in general, are not considered in WP:GNG, and I don't think should be considered. The reddit thread is focused on increasing the inclusion of reliable sources in the article, and replacing primary sources with secondary sources, which is useful for everyone. They haven't had much success, because nobody has found more reliable sources, but they're approaching the issue the right way. I wouldn't be concerned with vote-rigging; the person making the final determination is supposed to base the decision on the strength of arguments presented, not the number of so-called "votes". That doesn't always happen, just like some commenters ignore notability guidelines and cite their own reasons for deleting or keeping an article, but the process can handle an influx of editors trying to influence the outcome of an AfD. Agyle (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned, the IBT article is a reliable source, and Agyle just found a BBC article with several paragraphs dedicated to Vertcoin. Here's another one from Josic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider Josic a reliable source; Josic Media is a PR company, and it's not clear that it runs as josic.com as a subsidiary that's an independent news organization. It seems like it's blending promotional services with news as part of its SEO strategy. Agyle (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the author's profile, it seems like she is writing fairly neutral articles on tech topics including cryptocurrency; I see no evidence that the source is not reliable or independent. Regardless, the BBC article is definitely OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's more the fact that Josic.com itself is selling domain names on its front page, author-attributed articles are written by the same three freelancers, one with SEO content backgrounds, and as I said it seems to be engaging in SEO practices through blogging, which are among the topics highlighted on its main page, which can skew "independent" journalism. But opinions often differ on less established news organizations. Agyle (talk) 00:59, 4 May 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar–Pakistan relations[edit]

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

unreferenced and little information. fails WP:GNG. created by an editor who has gone on a recent spree of creating unreferenced bilaterals. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only possible justification for a bilateral article is that the relationship is in itself notable, which this one certainly is not. Indeed, if the uncited WP:OR were to be removed, there'd be nothing left. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this relationship is really notable, and at the moment there is definitely nothing in this article worth keeping. "Both the countries share the same Indian Ocean" is not a credible notability claim. Moswento ^talky 10:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG, a google search does not lead to any reliable sources. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 14:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They probably do have relations, but creating an unref'd stub should equate to a speedy deletion in my book. No problem if it's recreated with references to show that it is indeed notable of inclusion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment this was a declined speedy. Hence we are at AfD. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 25 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 delete by User:CambridgeBayWeather under WP:A11. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hagabaga[edit]

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

Non-existent word/vandalism. reddogsix (talk) 03:23, 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 Redirect to Brant-Argyle School. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brant school[edit]

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

No notability, historical or otherwise. Local histories of the types used as references here include everything that was in a town, and are therefore not RSs by themselves for the purposes of notability. It's already mentionedi n the district the succceeded it DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brant-Argyle School or perhaps Argyle, Manitoba. The school has local historical importance so we should mention it somewhere. I think the best place to mention it is in the Brant-Argyle School article under the history section. More substantial sources could persuade a keep vote here but I'm not seeing the degree of coverage needed to have more than a stub. Them From Space 16:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect-I agree with the comment above, seems to be a good redirection instead. Wgolf (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brant-Argyle School as not notable for a standalone article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:08, 30 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 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The JLP (cocktail)[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence of notability for this cocktail, no references are provided, and the air of mystery accorded the creator of the drink doesn't help. Original research. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability in the article, no indication of notability in Google. Moswento ^talky 08:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refernces. Looks like an OR. Harsh (talk) 17:38, 26 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 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Croftwerk[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Fairly insignificant company. Only detailed coverage is in "Dosch Design Magazine", which seems to be a trivial publication. The director is "name-checked" in a few other sources, but the company is not mentioned by name and there is no significant coverage in any case. Cannot find any other sources worth mentioning. Moswento ^talky 19:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable no significant independent coverage. Classic promotional-intent article by first-time editor. TheLongTone (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all sources are independent? - The Daily Record is a national newspaper with a circulation of 250,000+ so definitely a significant source? Dosch Design Magazine has a print run of 10,000 to the 3D industry in German and is distributed online worldwide, it's a relevant trade publication for the industry. First time publishers should be encouraged and helped by the community, or is this a closed shop? That's got nothing to do with the articles content? CharlotteSimpson (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the Daily Record is an independent source, but it doesn't actually discuss "Croftwerk" and it only mentions the director of Croftwerk in passing. The Daily Record piece is about the music video, rather than the company involved in making the music video. Also, although we welcome new editors, we discourage them from editing articles when they have a conflict of interest with the article subject. Moswento ^talky 14:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also challenge the assertion that Croftwerk is a "fairly insignificant" company - Look at how many of the artists the company works with have Wikipedia articles, this should illustrate it's standing as a significant cultural contributor to the music scene, I'm not sure how big the indie scene is in rural Buckinghamshire but if you lived in any European city or were aged under 25 the chances are you'd have come across Croftwerk video content. CharlotteSimpson (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might also want to read this page entitled "No personal attacks". Moswento ^talky 15:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm merely highlighting how you don't seem to be in a location that would allow you to make a personal judgement (not a quantifiable and independent one) on Croftwerk's notability in the contemporary music scene? Here's guideline 5 on Wikipedia's notability criteria topics related to music that Croftwerk satisfies, "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" The sub-culture is indie music, here are a list of some respected indie music blogs that Croftwerk videos regularly receive coverage on "Louder Than Bombs", "Slicing Up Eyeballs", "Popservations", "God Is In The TV", "Monkey Picks", "Dangerous Minds", I can go on if needed?CharlotteSimpson (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still fail to see why my home location affects my ability to judge an article by Wikipedia's notability criteria. But in any case, as a company, Croftwerk doesn't need to meet the notability guidelines for "music", it needs to meet the notability guidelines for companies, as found here. In other words, you need significant discussion of the company in multiple independent sources. Also, I am intrigued by something else - what age do you think I am? And what sort of music do you presume me to listen to? Moswento ^talky 19:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - This may be where your misunderstanding comes in, I've created the Croftwerk article because of the contribution to music culture. I'd argue this article should be judged by the music notability criteria because it refers to music and focuses on artists. A scene within a scene if you will. I could understand judging by company standards if there was reference to turnover, business plans, staff numbers etc but this isn't the case. It should be considered as "music related". Regarding your location question, the area you live in is a massive contributory influence in independent music. It's only bland mass homogenised music that has no geographic specific traits, as I say I'm unaware of a substantial music scene in rural Buckinghamshire but happy to be corrected on this if wrong. Regarding your age and music taste, can we please stick to matters related to editing an online encyclopaedia as that's what I'm here for and I assume you are too? CharlotteSimpson (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        "This may be where your misunderstanding comes in". So Croftwerk isn't a company? In any case, even if you judged it by the "Notability (music)" standards, it would fail. But I can see this isn't a fruitful discussion. Let's wait for other editors to comment. Moswento ^talky 20:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep The sources are perfectly reliable, there are to many references, but need other sources which are reliable Miyole (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The main question at this point is not the reliability of the sources. The problem is that only one of the sources actually discusses Croftwerk. Moswento ^talky 15:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, there is only one no trivial mention. The subject can not inherit notability from the acts it is connected with. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:NMUSIC. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:32, 20 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have mentioned, the company hasn't received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (WP:N, WP:CORP). I haven't found anything else that would show why it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Them From Space 16:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)d[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Woodard (soccer coach)[edit]

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

High school coach. won an award. no indication that the award is notable or the coach is either John from Idegon (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indian Springs School, no independent notability. Giant Snowman 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several sources listed in both external links and several mentions - enough to fill out a page and more unincluded at this time. Its removal would result in a net negative for Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Among his many awards, being nationally recognized as the Youth Soccer Coach of the Year (for Boys) by the United States Youth Soccer Association is more than sufficient for notability. (Also, I have improved the sourcing and layout of this article since it was nominated.) - Dravecky (talk) 13:43, 18 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is well referenced, meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:53, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information TV[edit]

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

Article is about a company that has launched Showcase TV and Showcase 2 on the Sky platform. The sources that exist are about the channels, not the parent company. This article is bordering on advertising and there seems no hope of it meeting WP:NCORP notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good nomination. Not a notable organisation. Per nom. Harsh (talk) 08:09, 18 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any significant sources about the company. Moswento ^talky 08:29, 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 no consensus. Additionally, there's a distinct possibility of a page move to Bansal Tutorials or merge to Vinod Kumar Bansal, the discussion of which can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bansal Classes[edit]

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

An article ~~created by a WP:SPA User:Bansal Tutorials~~ fails general notability guideline. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is similar to "ALLEN" earlier created and deleted multiple times and lastly salted to be created by some administrator. I'm not citing OSE, but seeing the coverage of the subject, I'm inclined to believe that it is the same case and doesn't satisfy notability guideline. Whatever coverage, are pass-by mention by the sources discussing examination pattern. One or two pass-by mention in a reliable source, is not substantial. There is ZERO direct coverage of the subject. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is in terrible shape, but there are multiple sources directly talking about the subject and it's proprietor: Wall Street Journal, Reuters as well as an entire book on the topic: It All Adds Up SPat^talk 16:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources found by SPat alone demonstrate notability, and I'm sure more could be found. Moswento ^talky 08:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A full coverage in WSJ does not translate into the article not having notability. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 14:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really deletion, but I suggest moving the page back to Bansal Tutorials, which was the actual name mentioned. The respective page is currently a redirect to itself (a double redirect). -- User:Paulstelian97 22:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Wow - I did some research, and turns out Bansal Classes (Kota) and Bansal Tutorials (Delhi) are actually separate entities, both doing IIT-JEE test prep and both founded in 1991. I'm surprised there hasn't been a trademark lawsuit yet. For our purposes, Bansal Classes is probably notable, whereas Bansal Tutorials is most definitely not. SPat^talk 16:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redircet to Vinod Kumar Bansal, which has proper sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:05, 28 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, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Writers' Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Historical Writers' Association

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

fails WP:ORG. 2 sources provided are not independent. Found nothing in bbc.com LibStar (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has independent sources which cover the association and its formation.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Most of those sources aren't "independent" at all. Some are plainly reprints of press releases and include the heading PRESS RELEASE just to be sure. At least one seems to be a very close paraphrase of a press release. What's interesting is that the comments section of one of those "sources" includes extensive advocacy for a different, older organisation with the same purpose with which this organisation is in direct competition. Methinks there might be some WP:PROMO involved, but that's less important. The fact remains I couldn't find anywhere near enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Stalwart111 23:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The fact that an independent medium choses to repeat information from a press release suggests that the medium believes it to be true. It is inevitably the case that the best source on many organisations is what they say about themselves. Some of it may be hyped up, but they have no motive for publishing falsehoods. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, plenty of regular "news" is based on press releases - its how journalists are notified about important events, opinions and announcements. I have no objection to journalism that happens to have been prompted by a press release. That's fine, but we're not talking about a journalist taking a press release, copying some quotes or facts and using them to build a story based on their own research and editorial considerations. We're talking about highlight, right click, copy, right click, paste. That's not journalism and its certainly not independent. Stalwart111 23:41, 20 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage. Searches in a UK press archive and in JSTOR both drew a blank, which is quite telling. Moswento ^talky 08:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor trade association. No sources for notability , and no reason to expect any. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Benett[edit]

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

Contested A7 speedy, subject appears to have won a couple industry awards... Tawker (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline notability at best--very mionor award. But certainly clear promotionalism. Not enough for G11, because there is some factual material, but this is not an acceptable encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The question here isn't whether this piece is was icky and promotional — it ~~seems~~ seemed to be. Nor is it whether the subject passes some sort of Special Notability "low bar" for having won this award or that. The question is whether or not sufficient independently published sources exist, dealing substantially with the subject, to source out a proper encyclopedic biography — now or in the future. When one keeps one's eye on the ball, that does seem to be the case here... See the footnotes showing, like THIS, for instance. Passes GNG. Needs work. No: needs LOTS of work... Carrite (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have pared away a lot of the bullshit and put the piece into more acceptable form. This is a really hard subject to Google search since he is an A-list Getty Images staffer and his photo credits appear many thousands of times around the internet. Also: would some admin kindly fix the capitalization of the surname in the title. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 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 01:24, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources is both independent and in depth. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:49, 21 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a borderline case, but I feel the Buenos Aires Herald article combined with the UK Editor's Guild award are enough for the subject to pass notability. SPat^talk 01:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely borderline, but the Picture Editors' Guild award seems to be a pretty big deal with a lot of press attention, and the Buenos Aires Herald is a nice source. There are probably therefore additional sources out there if we knew where to look. Moswento ^talky 08:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that the Picture Editor'd Guild Award is a big deal. Seems like a local award without much credo outside of picture editing on a glance at the award. Subject would therefore fail the notability test in my opinion. Dragonfire X (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The award has been covered in the Huffington Post, BBC News, The Independent, The Guardian, The Metro, MSN News - all mainstream sources, in addition to specialist publications such as the British Journal of Photography. Moswento ^talky 11:24, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Payday (TV series)[edit]

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

Unremarkable short-lived television programme. Had a few mentions in local newspapers, but that's it. An insignificant failure. Moswento ^talky 13:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It failed, but aired on a major network for a period of time; common outcome is that this should be kept. Nate • (chatter) 18:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said elsewhere, what matters is whether there are sources. Wikipedia:Notability (media) says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations...with a national audience...In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone...a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage." Can you find any significant media coverage for this? Moswento ^talky 19:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No reference and no sources. Miyole (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a source, which is a review.
- I've removed the source, because it referred to a completely different programme, namely a documentary aired on Channel 4 (article here). Moswento ^talky 15:28, 21 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Miyole SPat^talk 01:25, 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 redirect to The National Lottery Draws#Saturday night game shows. Insufficient sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Millionaire Manor[edit]

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

An unremarkable short-lived TV show. I found a one-paragraph comment in the Sunday Times, but nothing else of note. No lasting significance. Moswento ^talky 12:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 14:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It failed, but aired on a major network for a period of time (and here at least has ratings info to go with said failure); common outcome is that this should be kept. Nate • (chatter) 18:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but a more common outcome is that articles that fail the general notability guidelines should be deleted. Wikipedia:Notability (media) says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations...with a national audience...In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone...a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage." Can you find any significant media coverage for this? Moswento ^talky 19:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has some category and it can be refreshed. Miyole (talk) 16:47, 19 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no in-depth sources SPat^talk 01:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's judged not notable it should redirect to The National Lottery Draws#Saturday night game shows, which includes basic information on this program. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Delete - The short lived nature of it doesn't really bother me. I'd like to see more sources though. If those can be provided, I will change my vote to keep. Bali88 (talk) 15:59, 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 keep. Content problems are not a reason for deletion, and neither is the creator's standing unless they were evading a block/ban at the time of article creation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reif Estate Winery[edit]

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

Proposing deletion with possibility of a new article if topic is determined to meet WP:WINERY notability criteria. Current article fails WP:NPOV and consists entirely of promotional and primary-sourced content. Is a paraphrase of the subject's own marketing copy and was originally created by the subject. Ibadibam (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a request for clean up. There are plenty of RS out there. AfD is not the place for clean up.

NYTimes

Wine Spectator (I can not access the article)

O Canada

Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT and Canada.com articles have passing mention, so those don't establish a presumption of notability. Wine Spectator is a good source if the linked article is a profile and not just a portal of individual wine reviews, per WP:WINERY. Maybe we can find someone who has credentials to view the link and evaluate it. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 10 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I agree with the Strong Keep above. If it needs a clean up, there's no need for it to be tagged for deletion, unless it has already been tagged as such and that hasn't been mentioned. Tag it as needing a clean up and notify the article creators. That's the correct procedure. Dragonfire X (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been tagged for the primary-source problem for nearly three years. The page creator is blocked for sockpuppetry. What else needs to have been done to satisfy the need for due diligence? Ibadibam (talk) 19:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bengt Grafström[edit]

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

As the recently concluded AfD on pl wiki summed this up: a biography of an average TV journalist who have had an average career and has not achieved anything extraordinary that would grant him Wikipedia:Notability. Clearly fails WP:ENTERTAINER (in lieu of the not approved Wikipedia:Notability (journalists), which he would also fail...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Average according to whom? This man has a long career and has hosted Melodifestivalen. Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "This man has a long career]]" - are you serious? If this was a criteria for notability, every second person would be notable. Being on TV and hosting Melodifestivalen is just doing his regular job (incidentally, he is not even mentioned in that featured article...). Unless you can show that per WP:GNG there are numerous sources that discuss the importance of him hosting that show, it doesn't mean anything. Which part of WP:ENTERTAINER is he meeting by hosting that show? Again, as far as I can tell, he is just doing a good, but mundane job as a television journalist and media figure. Unless he is doing his job so well that he generated coverage, or received major awards or such, he is simply not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless you can show that per WP:GNG there are numerous sources that discuss the importance of him hosting that show, it doesn't mean anything - do not insult my intelligence first of all, secondly you have still to show how this person is non-notable beyond your strong "personal opinion" about him. I guess you are from Poland right? Then you probably do not know that Melodifestivalen is a extremely popular show in Sweden and it is very notable to have hosted it.If we should follow your reasoning, no one would be notable as being an actor like Angelina Jolie for example is her job and by your reasoning that would make her non notable beyond her job. Also what happens in Polish Wikipedia has no bearing on what happens here on English Wikipedia. Also you should know that a "personal opinion" does not count as a reason for deletion. This man obviously covers WP:GNG and the article should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You still have to prove what you are saying with policies and sourcss. All you offer here is your own personal opinion that thus show is popular and his appearance in it is enough. Per WP:ENTERTAINER, the most applicable policy here, which you seem to ignore: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." First, without sources, it is dubious hosting a show was a "significant role", as it seems to have failed to generate any coverage. Second, this role is singular, thus failing "multiple". Finally, one source that looks like a bio on a company page is hardly sufficient per WP:RS/WP:V. Those are not my "personal opinions", they are matter-of-fact policy readings. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a single source, but that one confirms what the article covers so far. I do not want to add more sources right now as that would be to influence the AfD I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Ummm. Influencing AfD is the purpose of what we do here. If you can add more sources, please do. It could save the article, if they show widespread coverage of this person in mainsteam sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I absolutely object this article from being deleted or be AfD. Why should my articles be under threat, when they're's hundred of articles that are poorer than mine are not being dealt with. I haven't seen you deal with the Fredrik Belfrage page or the article on Jacob Dahlin, who have got very little than Grafström article. The man is a well known presenter, he hosted one of Sweden's popular shows and is one of their best know radio broadcasters. --Mrluke485 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid deletion discussion argument. Thanks for reporting it, however, I may well prod them soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try to keep the tone civil. On the one hand, an entertainer needs to be more than just an entertainer to be considered notable; appearance in several notable works or significant discussion in secondary sources etc. On the other hand, we need to be careful not to write someone off because we've never heard of them because they're popular in another country that speaks another language; that's how we end up with systemic bias. I'd note that IMDb says he's hosted Swedish Eurovision coverage. Other than that, I don't have enough information to make a call on this one way or the other. GoldenRing (talk) 10:54, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1675 hits during five decades in the media database of the Swedish national library. /FredrikT (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - swayed by FredrikT above. Although rather borderline: a short dull article but the Swedish one has far more content, so there seems to be at least the possibility of expansion + extra sourcing. I couldn't care less about most articles on media people, but this one is doubtless not less notable than the generality and I think should have the benefit of the doubt, if only for the Eurovision connection, which seems to be a deciding factor on more than one otherwise iffy article.Jsmith1000 (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to some article associated with the peak of his career, Melodifestivalen 1988? Stuartyeates (talk) 01:36, 28 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Gardens (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking non-trivial support. Although it has two musicians associated with it with articles, there is some question about the notability of the musicians. reddogsix (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A cursory Google search brings up reviews of Full Sundown Assembly from [4] (PopMatters), [5] (The Quietus) and [6] (Sputnikmusic). Moswento ^talky 09:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources, which show that the band meets WP:MUSICBIO #1. It seems there is also coverage in the print magazines Mojo [7], The Wire [8], and Q magazine [9]. Gongshow talk 17:58, 22 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:07, 29 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auntie's Secret Box[edit]

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

Cannot find any coverage in reliable sources. Mentioned once or twice in lists of credits of performers, but no reviews, production details etc. Moswento ^talky 09:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only reference is to a programme guide database. No sign of any significance - doesn't appear to have any sort of fan base or references in secondary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 14:20, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Hazelton[edit]

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

Racing driver that has not competed in a professional race. All citations are race results except one interview with a speciality website that mostly discusses semi-pro racing. Fails WP:NMOTORSPORTS and WP:GNG. Drdisque (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 10 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the entire article is basically unverified editorial sourced to race results. That's not how Wikipedia works. If we actually included those facts that can be verified by those sources the resulting article would violate WP:NOTSTATS. There are whole sections ("Kautz's Honda power and superior aerodynamics seem to have been the deciding factor up the hill en route to the checkered flag") which are pure original research. There are a couple of instances of coverage (like this and this) but they aren't exactly what we would consider reliable sources - news reports from various races. I can't see how the subject passes WP:GNG. Stalwart111 07:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created this article because he is A REAL PROFESSIONAL. HE GETS PAID. PERIOD. In motorsport, to which I have been covering for over 35 years, 90% of drivers PAY to race. Hazelton has been paid by Carbir motorsport from what the reports detail. Where you race, and what series, does not make you a professional. If you PAY to race in the Indy 500, you are not professional. You are an amateur renting a car and a team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RacerReporter1971 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a professional doesn't automatically make him notable. The series he drives in isn't professional and his relationship with his team has no impact on his notability. The only way he is going to be considered notable here, as I see it, would be if he passes WP:GNG. Do you have examples of "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources"? Stalwart111 05:31, 21 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Being a professional, in any field, doesn't give automatic notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:40, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jagga Jasoos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article provides no source that the principal photography has begun. The article itself says "Movie schedules has been delayed due to the prior commitments of the two main leads." Skr15081997 (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 10 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the article and the references are just a collection of press releases or regurgitation of them by newspapers. Nothing here to satisfy WP:NF. GoldenRing (talk) 09:07, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as no reliable sources to show principal photography has started, as per WP:NFF. Moswento ^talky 08:03, 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 redirect to Dental implant. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implantology[edit]

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

Dental implant has been taken to GA. This article covers the same topic but is largely unreferenced and does not meet MEDMOS guidelines. Ian Furst (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 10 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - duplicate of Dental implant. GoldenRing (talk) 09:17, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a lot of us that monitor dentistry stuff, and I'm one of the few that edits Dental implant. I don't believe this will be a contentious deletion. Ian Furst (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dental implant. Agree completely with statements above, but I don't see a need to remove the title from WP. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dental implant. A plausible search term that is verifiable as existing in the dental literature, e.g., the Journal of Oral Implantology. --Mark viking (talk) 00:28, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JC Jacinto[edit]

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

Good start, but, does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Perhaps these awards are major in the Philippines. I am not familiar with them (but contemporary Philippines art is not my speciality, however, contemporary art is).

Based on research I have done in English language sources, I cannot see how Jacino passes our guidelines for an artist and general at this time. Perhaps in the future. SarahStierch (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (though Sarah's concerns are entirely valid). Maybe it's a Filipino artist thing (not sure) but the fellow seems to use a few variations of his name and so finding sources (especially in English) is tough. That said, I was able to find the following:

JC Jacinto & Renz Baluyot opposing strengths by Pinggot Zulueta (Manila Bulletin – 11 November 2013)
Contemporary Art by JC Jacinto by Paul Viluda (Cruzine, 5 September 2013) - not sure whether we would consider that a reliable source.
Gallery News: Pandy Aviado at The Crucible (The Philippine Star, 13 January 2014) - a passing mention about an exhibition.
DFA art exhibit opens today (ABS-CBNnews.com, 27 February 2012)
Exhibition Detail - you might be able to tell me whether this is a reliable source in the contemporary art world.
Strange Skins and Phosphene - again, no idea if this is a reliable source.

I suppose the point is that when the guy has an exhibition, it seems to generate a fair bit of coverage, at least in well-recognised local contemporary art sources. He's been featured several times at Manila's WestGallery which seems an important centre for Filipino contemporary art (and has featured some fairly important contemporary artists) and he created the cover art for this book, though I'm not sure if that adds much. My impression is that he's at least as notable as other contemporary Filipino artists, many of whom are covered here. I don't mean that as an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I just mean that if we're looking to equitably cover contemporary Filipino art, it would seem this guy should be on our list. Stalwart111 09:20, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josue Lajeunesse[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria – sole claim to importance is a brief featuring on an insignificant independent film. PerfectProposal 18:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 10 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, perhaps sadly, that this fails WP:BIO GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 17 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He was actually later also featured in a definitely notable documentary called La Source (which doesn't yet have an article here). But, no sources to suggest he is independently notable. A redirect/merge would be appropriate if someone wanted to create La Source (film) from this, this, this and this. Moswento ^talky 07:57, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Graf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mercedes Graf

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

Non-notable subject that was likely created by someone with ulterior motivations. Biased article not fit for WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Guye (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 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 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of "a significant or well-known work" or "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" per WP:AUTHOR. GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of significant impact on scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. WADR, an average professor. WorldCat shows that none of her books are widely held. Agricola44 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've changed positions in light of new findings by DGG. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I understand the deletion rationales, but I think a case can be made for keeping this article. WP:Notability (academics) says that "some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work...it is natural that successful ones should be considered notable." Graf's historical work is recognized by the Organization of American Historians as the "first comprehensive overview" of a certain historical topic [10]. Moreover, her historical publications have been featured in fairly prestigious periodicals [11]. She is also listed as an author on a number of psychological publications, a number of which have been modestly cited (see Scholar). If this article has not been deleted, I see no reason why we ought to remove Graf's; indeed, she appears to have had a more substantial impact. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The article wreaks of autobiography and needs purging of her lectures and the like. However, her work has been reviews in what appear to be significant academic periodicals. Assuming these have not rubbished it, that appears to be evidence of some notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but not enough evidence to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 22 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weak keep as an author. There seems to be nobody else publishing on some of these topics, so she might also be called an expert in the field. Her books of specific individuals have low holdings counts, as do those of all other people on similar individuals (except for Mary Edwards Walker who is famous, and has been the basis for many books. Her general book, Women doctors in war. is in over 700 libraries, according to worldCat. Agricola44, you must have missed this one. Does the count affect your opinion? DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed miss this – apologies. I think your assessment is correct – this helps nudge her over the bar. Have struck old vote above and added new below. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Her Women doctors in war is held by over 1K institutions, according to WorldCat. Though she seems to have only 1 work that is widely held, the breadth is probably several standard deviations above the average non-mass-market book. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 30 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.