Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 April	30 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The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basanta Singh[edit]

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

~~Only played 1 game-and it was not even a complete game. Wgolf (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator-I'm withdrawing this as I misunderstood this thinking they needed to have a full game. Wgolf (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article clearly meets WP:NSPORT, since he has played in a fully pro league and is far too young to qualify for the standard exception. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:For some reason I was thinking that they had to have played at least 1 full game. Wgolf (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Player has played in fully professional league, so passes NFOOTY. Needs improving to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I'm withdrawing this so this can go on. Wgolf (talk) 14:32, 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 speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. On the basis of the last three keep votes, I am going to go ahead and withdraw and close this. Note to QuackDoctor, had you offered a reasonable keep rationale, rather than personally attacking me from the the start, I might have been willing to withdraw this earlier. Take this as a lesson in civility. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanja Bulić[edit]

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

Appears to be a non notable journalist. Only source given is a brief biographical blurb. Safiel (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This journalist is quite notable in Serbia. He was chief editor of journal Duga (magazine), he wrote scenarios for several Yugoslav movies, and was one of the most well known TV anchors in Serbia. Moreover, he wrote several books. He has article on Serbian wikipedia, for several years by now. He frequently appears on state TV, and was most famous for bringing underworld characters to the TV interviewing him in the same style like academics, who were also his guests. Why this stub is suggested for deletion by people who know nothing of the local culture, is quite strange. As for sources, many can be found by google search alone (and if you dont understand Serbian, there is google translate, so that is not an excuse): Interview in Politika (most respected daily in Serbia) [1], other results from many magazines, [2], imdb page: [3], numerous books (see serbian page for the list) etc. Seems that proposer of this deletion, either knows not a thing about Serbia, and is possibly malicious as he didn't preform google check himself. QuackDoctor (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~The proceeding temper tantrum and unsubstantiated claims against myself tend to give the impression of a WP:COI or possibly even a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.~~ This nomination will go the entire week and the community, not YOU, will decide whether it is ultimately deleted or kept. This is a good faith nomination and I suggest you calm down and focus on proper arguments, not attacking the nominator. Safiel (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily not YOU will decide either. Nor will your ad hominem attacks prevent community (that has numerous Serbian editors too) to figure out the truth, which is clearly beyound YOUR means to understand - you cant see pass your petty deletionist agenda. QuackDoctor (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The malitious removal of this notable journalist by the proposer, as well as the unfounded accusations, suggest WP:COI on his part. As anyone can check the references, the person (Bulic) is notable. The person has nothing to do with me. In fact, the editor who started the article is not me either, but a new editor brought by me (also unrelated to the subject matter) who was experimenting and tried to write an article about a well known person (mostly the first one that came to his mind, but was surprised that had no article here). His attempt was met with instant deletionism. If you keep welcoming new user attempts of creating new content in this hostile and hysterical way, and propose deletions without even TRYING to understand the local content, and moreover show such racist contempt of Serbian people (regional notability IS relevant notability in the case of major national journalists) or any other non-english speaking people, you are going to have a lot of trouble in expanding editor base, as crisis of new editors exists precisely because of the bullying like the one shown by deletionist troll Safiel; this problem was written about in journals like MIT Technology review several times, and I am sure many people here know about it. Agressive, brainless (without checking the references) deletionsim of superficial people like Safiel, is destructive in many ways; as is turning away new contributors - someone says to his friend, come and edit wikipedia, it is nice and easy, and instead of being thanked for bringing in new editors one gets accused of personal interest. My only interest here is to fight profound idiotism of people who damage this project by turning away new contributors with perfectly valid contributions, because they are too lazy (or too stupid, or both) to figure out if something is relevant or not. QuackDoctor (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability in Serbia or even the Serbian speaking world does not necessarily equate to notability for the English Wikipedia. He may ultimately be determined to be notable, but it will be by the English Wikipedia's guidelines, not the Serbian Wikipedia's guidelines. Safiel (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are clear criteria for notability, and this person meets them all. Far less well known and notable people have articles here, and still meet the criteria. Why dont you CHECK the references, instead of talking nonsense. QuackDoctor (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked the references, and none signify notability and two are to non-English sites. A quick Google search shows noting in English and nothing to signify notability. Also could be a possible BLP violation as it does not link to any trustworthy sources. TheMesquito (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are imdb, or major Serbian news sites like daily Politika or B92 not trustworthy? Sources do not have to be in English; the Serbian sources all confirm his notability. QuackDoctor (talk)

Redirect to Pretty Village, Pretty Flame. This movie looks to be the writer's most known work, not notable enough for a stand alone article though per WP:INHERITED - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, I didn't even know about his role as screenwriter in this movie and I am from Serbia (movie is known to all ex-Yugoslavia people though), until the person who created this article found his name to put a red link to on that movie page, he was aware of that fact. He is best known for as TV presenter for Crni Biseri (which should have a page too, but I guess many would delete it too, ruining the some of the very best things about wikipedia, that is making local information acessible in english (supported by sources which are in this case also easy to find). Crni Biseri was a major thing in Serbia in the 90s - popular show that CHANGED Serbia (to the worse); also, he was very notable as chief editor of important Duga magazine. Nowadays, he writes books that sell good in Serbia (bestselling author of popular books). But you wouldn't know that if you are not Serbian speaking (since noone wrote a wikipedia article yet). Just wait for other Serbian editors with local knowledge to explain the relevant context for you (since you don't believe me here and have no time to go over the google translated Serbian articles which are plentiful. QuackDoctor (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some reliable Serbian sources then? The article needs more coverage, IMDB is only good if portions created by staff writers are used for example. (Wikipedia:Citing IMDb) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to do all the work? There are other Serbian editors who might do this. Someone starts an article, others extend it. That is how it should work here, but if you instantly delete a stub, and turn away new people that I tried to bring here, you are doing real damage. If I was annoyed here, it is because of the unnecessarily paranoid deletionist attitude that is demonstrated here. If this comes to attention of other Serbian editors (I have asked them to contribute at relevant project page), as I hope it will in the next few days, you will see. But I guess even page on Serbian wiki did not have much work done. And if you turn away new contributors it will stay that way. Is that what you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.252.43 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here on Wikipedia the editors here try to create a non hostile environment the remarks made by you were insulting right off of the top, do you see any other editors doing this? I may disagree with someone else but I don't lunge forward with words but state my opinion on why I feel they are wrong in context of the subject not the person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hostile to try to delete the article the very moment it was created. The person who created the article (as a way to come to wikipedia, and at MY invitation) was disgusted by this, and told me "I don't want to do this, this is not worth my time". That is the kind of environment you are presenting to new users. I am simply reacting to that. QuackDoctor (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to continue this convo at WP:ANI this way it is in one place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone who's occupied these positions is definitely going to get substantial coverage in major sources, and when you're prominent in the 1990s in Eastern Europe, that coverage is going to be overwhelmingly in non-English print sources. The WP:GHITS page is somewhat relevant; in this situation, we can't judge notability purely on the lack of reliable English-language sources available through Google. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a failure of WP:BEFORE. I'm not interested in expanding the article, but the man has 80 hits only on the website of the national TV; 417 in one major newspaper Blic, and 94 in another Politika; take away 50% on Google's miscounting, and that's still plenty. Wikipedia is global English-language encyclopedia, not encyclopedia of English-speaking world, and WP:N and WP:V do not require that notability and sources must be in English. No such user (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As said above, Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia of only the English-speaking world. If there were zero zip nada zilch references to this individual in English-language publications, that would not matter even a tiny fraction of an iota. Original English references are better, yes, but they are not strictly necessary, especially with respect to someone in the entertainment world (defined broadly) which is so heavily language-dependent. --NellieBly (talk) 14:38, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrinational[edit]

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

WP:NEO. That a word has been made up by and used by some junior doctors does not make that word a notable topic for an encyclopedia. For info: There currently isn't a Wiktionary article about this word. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe it could be redirected to Health care in the United Kingdom? Or is that a bad idea? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devolution in the United Kingdom might be a better redirect target. DexDor (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No useful sources. A bunch of junior doctors having some fun. Ignore them. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wp:NEO The word doesnt appear in popular useage, no sources found in dictionaries online Amortias (T)(C) 21:58, 6 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tané McClure[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some sources to the article. There is biographical coverage in Billboard and Allmusic, plus two album reviews (also in Billboard and Allmusic), plus having a charting album and top-40 single, which taken together establishes that the subject meets WP:MUSIC #1 and #2. Gongshow talk 09:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Billboard Top 40 hit and numerous film roles (particularly in softcore productions) make her notable enough. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gongshow's sources - An artist who has had a recording chart in the Billboard Hot 100 Top 40 will satisfy WP:MUSICBIO #2. Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 6 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 speedy keep; nomination has been withdrawn by nominator and there are no outstanding delete !votes. I have also moved the article to Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore as per capitalization and punctuation standards. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya vidyalaya no-1,ishapore[edit]

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

~~Might not meet school notability on Wikipedia. Or maybe it just needs a userfy. Wgolf (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator-I'm withdrawing this seeing it is a notable school that needs clean up. Wgolf (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a verifiable 1–12 school. You can try to throw WP:NSCHOOL at it, but such schools are usually kept. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I think the thing is the article is poorly written-surprise nobody marked it until now. Wgolf (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a basic clean up of the article. If it survives AfD, a page move to Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ishapore is in order. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Schools are kept whether we like it or not. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are kept per long-standing consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agus Fauzan Arifin[edit]

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

Another article about a referee with nothing about how he might be important. Wgolf (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable ref. no indication of GNG, does not appear to have refereed any continental or international matches. Fenix down (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Are referees normally notable? Because I can't he how this one is. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:59, 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 redirect to Berhampur (Lok Sabha constituency). j⚛e decker ^talk 06:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanada Kanta Mishra[edit]

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

Just listed as a candidate for an election-now looking over the way things work-I believe that this does not quite fit NP:Political. Wgolf (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure if this is a candidate for a primary or an actual election I should add-not sure how elections work out there. Wgolf (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect: Election contestants should be redirected to their constituency, here it being Berhampur (Lok Sabha constituency), because that is where their statistics would be recorded. User:Wgolf, i suppose you can boldly do that from next time onwards instead of raising AfDs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As per Dharmadhyaksha. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{« ৳ᶏ ɭϞ »} 06:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:10, 6 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 00:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Fountain[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - no title fights. No notable victories. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOX and GNG. Retired after 11 fights and has 1 victory over a fighter with a winning record.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage given except for his record. Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 15:34, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Bach[edit]

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

I find that she is only really notable by being David Hasselhoff's (now) ex-wife. And notability isn't WP:INHERITED. Her acting credits aren't really impressive, she's mainly an extra and is credited as "Girl on the Bus", "Beach Girl", "Blonde in steam sauna", "Woman". The reliable sources found are just about her divorce with Hasselhoff or her arrest. Hardly notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The way that I look at notability not being inherited, I don't think it should really matter why a person is famous/notable/is in the press, the "not inherited" should only really apply to people who aren't getting press but are merely associated with a celebrity in some way. For instance, Kevin Federline is only famous for being Britney's ex, his notability derives entirely from his relationship to Brit. Her new beau, David Lucado, is not notable. They both have the same relationship to her, but one got major press, the other one, only a little. David Lucado is an example of WP:INHERITED. A spouse of a celeb who gets press, such as Federline, does not. In her case...I'd say she's borderline. She did have a recurring role on Baywatch and she seems to be getting some continuing press for random life events. I wouldn't fight super hard to keep it, but I think she scrapes by. Bali88 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 23 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, czar ♔ 16:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per Bali88. Although obviously best known for her marriage to (and tempestuous split from) Hasselhoff, she has gotten some attention and coverage for her own work over the years. I've added a few sources to substantiate this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable because she meets WP:GNG, we do not make subjective value judgments of her worth to the human race. There's a reason she has articles on 6 wikipedias.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, who was making judgments as to her worth to the human race? I missed it. Bali88 (talk) 21:47, 6 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 00:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Vann[edit]

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

A quick look for sources doesn't really bring up anything beyond press releases. Some exposure, but not really seeing any notability. Mabalu (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a founder of her own salon spa already makes her notable. Plus a lot of women buy her products, think of Loreal.--Mishae (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it doesn't. The very fact that she has opened her own salon does not automatically make her notable. She needs independent third-party coverage on her which looks specifically at her (or at least at her salon) and is not reprinted press releases or her own publicity material, and I'm not seeing any of this. Mabalu (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Delete.--Mishae (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 23 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, czar ♔ 16:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a few brief mentions in fashion websites, but no in-depth coverage. Lots of people own their own business, whether a salon, beauty parlor, or whatever, so that doesn't make her notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will Hot Beauty Magazine be enough? In October 2013 she made a design which was mentioned in their September/October issue.--Mishae (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's only one source - there should ideally be at least three solid sources to demonstrate notability. I'm not sure Hot Beauty sounds like a particularly reliable source though, I had a quick look and it describes itself as the youngest beauty trade publication so probably hasn't really established itself yet. Mabalu (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry to say, but not notable, just a competent professional in her field.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:04, 6 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 00:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PFC.Eric Ribitsch[edit]

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

Rank and single Bronze Star award do not meet requirements of WP:SOLDIER. No other indication of notability. Unsourced. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, and I couldn't find sources to suggest this individual meets Wiki notability guidelines. Moswento ^talky 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 23 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, czar ♔ 16:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very junior soldier with a very minor decoration. No notability whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just one of many casualties of the Vietnam War. His FindaGrave entry says just about the same thing as the article.Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 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 speedy keep. Closed per WP:SK#1, as the nominator has not put forward a valid reason for deletion. James500 puts it best in his comment below. This nomination is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amash-Conyers Amendment[edit]

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

Another failed bill. Laun chba ller 16:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Bill failed is not in of itself a reason to delete this article. James500 (talk) 08:47, 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 both. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yuliyan Chapaev[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP on the grounds that the plays for notable team. While he is signed to CSKA Sofia, he has not played matches for them, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:09, 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. (Per discussion, there is currently no reliable sourcing for a merge or redirect.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eaton House (Watchung, New Jersey)[edit]

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

Fails to meet any of the Project's notability standards. Was PRODed. PROD was removed by creator -- the only editor who seems to have any real interest in this article. On the basis that "Article has been in place for several years and is about the historic home of Congressman Aubrey Eaton." Those assertions do not make the subject of the article notable. Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This discussion I had with the article's creator abt 2 yrs ago says it all. Appropriate sources just aren't there. EEng (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 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, czar ♔ 15:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem to be notable as a building in its own right. Past occupnts are not relevant:WP:NOTINHERITED.TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Charles Aubrey Eaton. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

That makes sense. EEng (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that is both non-trivial and RS-supported to merge. Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Non-trivial in the sense of the house, maybe, but it is generally worthy of note where a figure ahas lived for a long time, especially if the house was built for or by them. If the remaining non-deleted information is already in the target article, then simply make a redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC).

Exactly. If the salvageable material is the null set, then that's what we'll move. Why does everything have to be a hypertechnical fuss? I should say, though, that there's some reason Epeefleche is somewhat exercised: turns out this and a few related articles were a crass move by some sockpuppets to raise the rental value of some real estate. Not going to bother finding the SPI link now. EEng (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EEng is of course correct. The author of this article -- who btw sourced this article completely with putative sources that one can't verify online, and which have only to this point been accepted on an assumption of good faith -- is part of a set of socks. The socks were intent on creating an article on "Maryse Selit" who was deemed, at AfD (despite more than one sock participating), to be non-notable. The socks also created this article, and were also intent in the course of writing this article on asserting through non-RSs that Maryse Selit purchased this house. Frankly, given the socking, and indef blocks of the socks (both for legal threats and socking), I believe that AgF is not in order, and believe we should therefore delete the refs we cannot verify, and all they reflect. Which, of course, leaves zero RS-supported material to merge. Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any merge should take an extremely strict view of the sources -- no AGF for offline sources supplied by socks. EEng (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems perhaps more likely that the effort to make the house notable is for the rental value, rather than the resale value. I find this nauseating, and object strongly to any merge or even a redirect -- this is simply a non-notable house that someone is seeking to rachet up the resale value on by abusing the Project. Reprehensible. Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it nauseating as well, especially since the participants in this scheme appear to be attorneys who thought they could fool us with this stratagem [4] -- disturbing to think officers of the court can be so stupid. But we don't punish articles for the sins of their creators -- if there's verified (by the evidence of our own eyes) material re the house that's worth mentioning in the other article, fine, we'll include it. But we need to ask whether such information is something we'd bother including if it we're shoved in our face by this situation. We can take this up once the AfD is closed. EEng (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: On reflection I guess there is a difference between a delete, and a merge (even if the merge doesn't actually move any material to the target article). The difference is that a merge leaves behind a redirect, and while this may sound trivial, given the history of this situation if this subject isn't notable, which it doesn't seem to be, then it shouldn't have a redirect which would continue to validate the promotional scheme discussed above. In summary: zero or more bits of material might be moved, but there should be no redirect. EEng (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Even use of the phrase "Eaton House" for this building is either fabricated or non-notable. Rendering a redirect inappropriate. And for further evidence of the commercial nature of this creation, check out the wikipedia commons pix posted by the socks and linked to in this article and their genesis at http://www.vacationrentals.com.Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 3 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinshjh[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article that seems to have no useful sourced content beyond what is already covered in the Tomb of Sher Shah Suri article. Additionally I can't find a connection between the article title and the subject. If someone else can then I will change my !vote to redirect. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 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, czar ♔ 15:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any mentions of the article title "Chinshjh", not sure what is it. Nothing on Google web, Scholar and Books. Only results found were some Wikipedia mirror sites and Chinese historical figures. The first para repeats what's already in Tomb of Sher Shah Suri, while the second talks about Akbar's architecture...confusing. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:05, 30 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 17:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 9 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. The fact that this is a recreation, the style of writing, and the edit history (largely by a set of SPAs) make this likely to be wikipedia-for-hire, thus salting the title. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newgen Software Technologies[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, the sources are not significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources offered are a dead link and routine coverage of the company's press releases. Googling turns up nothing useful. I note also that the previous AfD was speedy closed after the article was speedy deleted as advertising. Msnicki (talk) 14:55, 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, czar ♔ 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing sufficient coverage in view of WP:CORPDEPTH. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:00, 7 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 no consensus. Even after two relists, this debate never managed to attract any significant participation. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bast[edit]

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

Not a notable figure according to wikipedia's standards. Tiakat333 (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope you'll understand my suspicion about a nom by someone with 2 edits unrelated to the nom itself. Would you care to clarify what notability guidelines this article doesn't meet and why?

Oh yeah, and here are some more sources: [5] [6] [7] Jinkinson talk to me 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry I don't have a lot of experience editing Wikipedia? I have tried to a number of times and am just so bad at understanding basic coding, but please don't fault me for that... The sources of this article, however, are mostly from Mr. Bast himself. That is why I doubt this person's notability. They have done little besides publish a few books, and I know lots of people who have published books that are not on Wikipedia. I think combining the information here with the information on the Heartland Institute's page could be a solution, but I am genuinely unsure of how to do that. As I mentioned, I'm not good with this stuff, but I'm trying to get better. Tiakat333 (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He does have some claim to notability as someone heading an organisation which has been in the news and as someone whose opinion has been sought multiple times by the media. But the articles cited by Jinkinson don't provide much in the way of information about him; they just cite him as an expert or a spokesman for Heartland, and are nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. The links on the article don't qualify as independent and reliable sources: most are by Bast, with some blog and user-generated content. I can't find reviews of his publications in mainstream publications. But a couple more references from reliable sources that actually say something about Bast might establish notability. A merge to Heartland Institute could be possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 07:04, 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, czar ♔ 15:55, 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 no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Originator (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable novel; fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding sources, but they're sort of hard to dig up since this was released before the Internet was really a thing. I've changed the page to reflect on the series as a whole, as I figured it'd be easier to prove notability for the two books together rather than individually. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the topic be renamed, then, to the name of the series? -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 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, czar ♔ 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources per NBOOK. -- GreenC 04:37, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Himani Narang[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ENT. Self-promotion article. Harsh (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 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, czar ♔ 15:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is about an Indian dentist's hobby, which is not notable, and fails every relevant notability test such as NACTOR, ENT, etc. She's only 29 years old; like the Blues, classical Indian dance performers don't even become experts until their late 50s. Since it is also written in Hinglish, it would need to be completely re-written. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 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 redirect to Crow Mother (band). j⚛e decker ^talk 17:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Jurevics[edit]

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

Non-notable Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and I can't find anything that focuses specifically on Jurevics. The band's article is a little rough, but assuming that it doesn't fail WP:NBAND, we could redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has some assertion to notability in that it won two contests, so this should redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crow Mother (band), agree. It seems none of this material is really sourced, but if any if it can be merged to the band page, it'd be good. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:55, 28 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, czar ♔ 15:51, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Wythe[edit]

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

Not yet notable according to WP:NACTOR. Child actor has had some minor stage roles, but no evidence from the citations given that she's actually appeared on stage in a major role yet, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Ruby Murray 06:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 06:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 07:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Safiel (talk) 03:11, 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, czar ♔ 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm unable to locate significant coverage to establish that she meets WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 09:59, 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 keep and rename to List of visitor attractions in Vijayawada. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Places of interest in Vijayawada[edit]

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

No references and I think the topic is not notable enough; At some places it reads like advertisement. I think it also violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Now lets see what others think. Jim Carter ^(talk) 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. NOTGUIDE seems a little more specific than that. It prohibits listing the best restaurants, phone numbers, hours of operation, etc. There's no actual prohibition that I can see on listing landmarks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this were renamed to List of visitor attractions in Vijayawada, would anyone have a problem with it? postdlf (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a good solution. The current name does lead one to assume that it's a violation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see something seriously wrong with it.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename per Postdlf - I see no reason why this shouldn't be renamed to List of visitor attractions in Vijayawada, Much better than It being deleted. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename :There is no promotional content, they are only the historic places and main landmarks in the city like the city of Hyderabad page which has the similar page for tourism, the city of vijayawada also should be having such page. In fact, change the name to List of tourist attractions in Vijayawada. --Vin09 (talk) 07:36, 29 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 00:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cantata++[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced and non-notable product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find any independent secondary sources that would be prominent enough to establish notability of this product. The closest one I could find was review on embedded.com, which alone is not enough (unfortunately, given that article is well-written). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:57, 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. Note also this is consistent with past results at AFD for similarly detailed season or episode guides of other game shows. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Raven series[edit]

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

I have had this on my watchlist for over a year and am disgusted with myself for not AfDing this earlier. IronGargoyle's rationale for redirecting the article, "no references, all original research", is probably a better summary than any diatribe of mine. Laun chba ller 12:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - A brief summary on Raven would be better. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its issue tags (which haven't been addressed in 3.5 years) say it all. — Wylie pedia 07:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There exists a good-quality article on the show itself. I see nothing in this obsessively detailed accounting that seems at all encyclopedic. Bustter (talk) 16:56, 6 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 Keep as a snowball close. It appears the subject satisfies WP:NPOL requirements, and the overwhelmingly rapid consensus in favor of retaining the article suggests the discussion has already reached its logical conclusion. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Green (MP)[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy the stipulations of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC Barely satisfies the stipulations of WP:NPOL James ^{(T • C)} • 10:42pm • 11:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator). WP:NPOL says: "1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Green was for 18 years an elected Member of Parliament in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, which is a national legislature. Why does the nominator describe that as "barely" meeting NPOL?
I will add some more refs, but this nomination appears to be completely ill-founded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite obviously meets the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Ludicrous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Barely satisfying WP:NPOL is still satisfying WP:NPOL. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Snow keep - elected to a national assembly. I also note that even if this lacks in depth sourcing at present, it won't after the History of Parliament Online project is completed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:NPOL as he was elected to Westminster on numerous occasions. Finnegas (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proposer is attempting to promote John Green (author) by deleting all namesakes from Wikipedia, e.g. John Green (Medal of Honor) who is also unambiguously notable as a Medal of Honor recipient per WP:SOLDIER, and John Green (judge), who plainly meets WP:POLITICIAN. Proposal says the article fails to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BASIC but offers no indication of what searches have been done for sources, suggesting WP:BEFORE has not been done. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what his motive is, but he is certainly prodding articles that should definitely not be prodded. His argument seems to be that these people are not notable, which they clearly are, and/or that there are no reliable sources, which is not a good reason to prod clearly notable articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly notable as an MP. But posibly move to Greene?: it's not clear whether his name is "Green" or "Greene" - see my note on the talk page. Could someone with access to a useful WP:RS please check? (Too early to be in "History of Parliament": Hansard has him as "Greene", probably more reliable than Rayment who has "Green"; article title and text are at odds.) PamD 15:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @PamD: Edit conflict while I drafted the comment below. Yes, his name is Greene. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note mis-spelt name. The source I used when I created the article in 2009 mis-spells his name. Other sources confirm that it should be "Greene": Walker's book, which I have added, plus [8], [9], [10], and more in a Gbooks search. Some publications do mis-spell the name (see Gbooks earch for "John Green"), but a search for Greenville (the family's estate) and Greene confirms the spelling. I don't want to move the page while it is at AFD, but if User:M.O.X would like to withdraw the nom I can move the page and correct the other links to him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Passes NPOL. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:18, 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 merge to Bexley railway station. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bexley derailment[edit]

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

fails WP:Event. just another no fatality derailment with no long term significance. LibStar (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Bexley railway station and Dartford Loop Line articles. Worth mentioning there but I agree not notable enough for an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bexley railway station, Pointless mentioning it at DLL. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mjroots. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:48, 6 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CobolScript[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for sources and notability since October 2011, but there is still no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only thing cited in the article that could be regarded an an independent reliable source is one paper presented at a conference, not enough on its own to establish notability. A Google search produced mainly download sites, blogs, wikis, etc etc. (The article was deleted via PROD in October 2013, but has since been restored because an editor asked if he or she could see the deleted content.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any sources that would not seem to come from the authors, not even anything about use of this language in production. I would happily merge this article into COBOL § Legacy (or potential Influence section at the bottom), be any secondary sources found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into COBOL § Legacy. Jarble (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it can't be merged until there are sources ti establish WP:WEIGHT of the subject within the target article. Primary sources – all that we have right now – are not enough for that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's a well established programming language and I think due to it's nature passes WP:GNG. I thought it was brand new, i.e. >2-3 years old, but it's been on the go since the turn of the century. It's so unusual as an offshoot from an extremely venerable dev. language. scope_creep talk 15:35 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Strong Delete. (I would have just said "Delete", but I think my reasoning is just as good as the preceding comment!) I hadn't heard of CobolScript until today (and I'm reasonably familiar with a very wide range of languages), but my immediate thought was "Ah, a scripting language for the COBOL community; that should be interesting...". Unfortunately, although this language has indeed been around since the turn of the century, it doesn't seem to have developed a user base. Like Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, I have not been able to find evidence of serious programming being done in CobolScript. There are a lot of links available to sites promoting the language, but these seem to be closely linked to a single company. Without a greater variety of sources or evidence of some sort of user-base it's hard to believe that CobolScript is notable. I suspect it falls into the category of "slightly cool languages that have been presented at conferences, but then are never heard from again". If we turn out to be wrong on this, and CobolScript later develops a following, we can always re-create this article then, but for now the only thing that is lost by a deletion is the imprimatur of a Wikipedia link on the language promoter's website. RomanSpa (talk) 06:27, 9 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 speedy delete via WP:G11. There is an assertion of notability here, but it needs such a complete re-write that it's better to start over with this, preferably via WP:AfC since there is possibly a WP:COI here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Mukerjee's Health Total[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is plain advertising The Banner talk 11:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I have tagged the page for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11. Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 6 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 Keep for Whale watching in Australia and Whale watching in New Zealand. The result was Delete for the remaining copypaste creations. (Note that all copypasting even -- even from within Wikipedia -- requires proper attribution per WP:CWW otherwise it is a copyright violation.) I suggest that any further discussion about Whale watching and the kept sub-articles should be done on a case-by-case basis. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whale watching in Brazil[edit]

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

This article is a copy of Whale watching, and does not improve upon the content. I am also nominating the following articles:

Whale watching in the USA
Whale watching in Hawaii
Whale watching in South Africa
Whale watching in Chile
Whale watching in Argentina –– Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 05:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whale watching in the Mediterranean
Whale watching in New Zealand
Whale watching in Australia -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 05:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whale watching in Canada
Whale watching in Norway -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 06:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Whale Watching article, all under their own sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staglit (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the above articles have been simply copy pasted from Whale watching, so there is nothing new in the above 11 articles, so merging won't do anything. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. No valid deletion criterion has been presented, and Whale watching is certainly notable. Even whale watching in some specific countries is notable, as a Google Books search shows. Some of these articles should probably be merged back into Whale Watching, but a bulk AfD is not the place for such a merge discussion. -- 101.117.29.29 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable in their own right, see WP:GNG. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of them are, as a Google Books search shows. -- 101.117.29.29 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whale watching in New Zealand is certainly notable, and I have just expanded the article to make it more encyclopaedic. One of the senior NZ admins had already rated the article for Wikiproject New Zealand and has given it mid-importance, which further demonstrates the point. I have no opinion or knowledge about notability of other country articles. Schwede 66 20:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 22:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bduke (Discussion) 22:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the material should be merged back into Whale watching, but the specific details of places would be more appropriate on WikiTravel. The article there on Whale watching needs work and will be deleted at the end of 2014 if not rescued, but that could be done with some of this material. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query Given that you have commented after my keep vote, where I maintain that Whale watching in New Zealand is notable, could you please clarify / confirm that you have actually looked at the NZ entry, and that your global delete vote is supposed to apply to the NZ entry as well? Schwede 66 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the NZ article and I have looked again at it. It still think it is WikiTravel material. A link to there could be on Whale watching. WMF has many projects. Not everything fits wikipedia. Some stuff should be on other projects. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering the fact that only the NZ article has been improved, and all the other ten were and are simply copy pastes from Whale watching, only the the NZ article may be considered for keeping. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 07:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. The fact that the NZ article has been improved shows that the nom did not do a proper WP:BEFORE check and that this whole blanket nomination is flawed. -- 101.117.108.195 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with that comment. Either an article is notable, or it is not. That's independent to whether somebody improves an article. What an improvement may do is to show notability more clearly, but it doesn't establish notability in the first instance. Schwede 66 23:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AfD is not a place to cleanup and wikipedia is not a place to keep multiple copies of insignificant articles. The eleven articles were simply copy pastes from Whale watching created without discussion, rationale for keeping indipendent articles, or evidence of notability. A google search results in mostly links to tourism websites which is not an indication for notability and a google books search results in one on Australia and New Zealand only, which I don't know whether it makes the subject notable or reliaible. But an editor experienced in the field may come out with some other obscure, but notable sources, which is not possible for an editor like me who is not an expert in the field. Atleast, we can initiate a discussion, which may bring the articles in question to the attention of intrested editors. And this is the place to discuss whether or not an article is worth keeping. Now the above comment was made by me to stress the point that may be the NZ article should be looked into separately since the article has been significantly expanded since the initiation of the deletion disscussion and the others are copy pastes. By looking just at the google search results, it is not possible to judge a subject's notability. Cheers! -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 10:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Whale watching in New Zealand with the article on Kaikoura. I don't think the article is sufficiently notable to stand alone, but it is appropriate within the Kaikoura article. NealeFamily (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Whale watching in New Zealand with the article on Kaikoura. Improved article, yes but says little about whale watching and more about Kaikoura.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NealeFamily and Egghead06, please note that I have further expanded the article, and broadened it in its geographic scope away from the rather dominant Kaikoura. Feel free to review the amended article and reconsider your vote if appropriate. Schwede 66 04:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have considerable doubt as to why Whale Watching is worthy of an article in Wiki. Essentially it is a tourist activity associated with particular localities of which there is a present only one in NZ, Kaikoura. I could see some merit of having a general article about human interaction with either the coastal maritime environment or whales in a more general sense. Are we heading down the lines of Bird watching in New Zealand, Possum shooting in New Zealand, etc? NealeFamily (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whale watching in New Zealand is certainly notable as is Whale watching in Australia which I have edited and added references to make it more encyclopaedic. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Whale watching in New Zealand and Whale watching in Australia as they are sourced and notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:00, 5 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 Nomination withdrawn. Natg 19 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Silna[edit]

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

This page has the same information as Ozzie Silna. As that page is better formatted and has more information, this page should be deleted and merged into Ozzie Silna. Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per comments below Natg 19 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. But from there, the page should be renamed to 'Ozzie and Daniel Silna'. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 23 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, czar ♔ 04:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Natg 19: Are you recommending deletion in any way? Your argument appears to recommended merge as the course of action, so I wanted to give you a heads up that AfD noms that don't have a deletion argument qualify for speedy keep #1. If this is the case, you may want to withdraw your nom. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or otherwise just do it yourself WP:BOLDly. Have a good one czar ♔ 04:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly need to be rewritten, but has enough RS to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:01, 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 (nomination withdrawn). No other than the nominator !voted delete. Three keep !votes plus nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gourishankar Ray[edit]

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

~~Can't find any info about this guy-no links or refs either. It might be important, but is he important enough to have his own page? No pages link to here either Wgolf (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator-withdrawing this seeing that it is someone important to the culture out there-needs a major cleanup though. Wgolf (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-no info at all, I can't find anything about him. Wgolf (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a quick google books search reveals several entries on him, and they are in line with the material in the article. The article needs cleanup, wikification and references, but the subject is notable. For example, there is a biography dedicated to him; http://books.google.com/books?id=TTw_AAAAMAAJ and a documentary film with the same name. --Soman (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay found some stuff-I think the article has the problem of sounding a bit too bias though.

Wgolf (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also found it odd that there is nothing about him on here at all so it almost seemed not important, well we will see what happens. Wgolf (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think the article needs more then just a bunch of dates of what happened as it looks more like just a timeline right now. But at least it does look somewhat better. Wgolf (talk) 02:24, 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, czar ♔ 04:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Soman the person is notable, The article just needs a clean up. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability criteria, as outlined by Soman.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I like to withdraw my request. Wgolf (talk) 03:38, 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 keep. Consensus here among overal participants is for article retention. Hopefully the article will be copy edited to address concerns presented herein. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modakeke[edit]

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

"Cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, and original theories and conclusions." - WP:DP. Also use of obvious bias towards the place being described. Person who created the page sounds like they live there, but unfortunately is making many claims with no sources at all. Jacob102699 (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC) There is also an extremely incorrect population on there based on the page, List of cities in Nigeria by population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob102699 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article on a populated place, with a history of conflicts. I have added several references, and it is also covered in a Britannica article. I agree with the nominator about the likely inaccuracy of the given population (151,515 seems the most likely, though I have not found a sufficiently strong primary source to replace with that), and much of the article text is needing substantial pruning/renovation, but that is a matter for normal editing; complete absence of an article on a town of this size is not the answer. AllyD (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like much of the article is copied from modakeke.info. Place certainly exists. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:22, 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, czar ♔ 04:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 'modakeke' has 7,320 google books results, so the nominator hardly read WP:BEFORE prior to initiating the AFD. Clean-up and POV issues can be dealt with, but are not reason for deletion. Do note that Modakeke can refer to both the town as well as the community as such. --Soman (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:OUTCOMES, we have kept almost every inhabited place on Earth. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While an article with this title should probably exist, I have some sympathy with the nomination. Google Maps gives just one result for the name, placing it in an uninhabited spot a few miles north of Ife, Nigeria; Bing and Wikimapia produce similar results, except that the uninhabited spot they identify is a few miles west of Ife; and while some other maps also indicate positions, none seem to provide anything that is accurate enough to be verifiably different from Ife. Modakeke's existence does seem to be verifiable from written sources and there are plenty of references to conflicts between Ife and Modakeke - but, when it comes to its geographic position, several historic ones suggest that Modakeke should be close enough to Ife to be within Ife's urban area on current maps and none of the current ones give enough information to differentiate it geographically from Ife. Matters are further confused because while some of the references to very long-standing conflicts between Ife and Modakeke seem to state they are separate places ("villages" in some accounts - which is odd as Ife, at least, seems to be a sizeable city), others refer to "clans" or the like - which might suggest a communal conflict between two groups living in what is essentially the same place. I can give no real answers - but the article does seem very problematic, and I am not seeing enough agreement between possible sources to sort the problems out properly. PWilkinson (talk) 22:32, 3 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 keep. Additionally, note that while the first comment by IP 24.228.254.55 wasn't denoted in bold with "keep", "comment", etc., it is essentially a keep !vote in nature, is guideline-based, and contributes to the overall consensus here. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Mitchell[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I think that this article fails the WP:GNG criteria as well as the musician-specific notability guidelines. He's been one of many members of a notable group, which does not make him notable himself. The only real notability argument here is that he inherits some notability from his father, but notability is not inherited in this case. Ducknish (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. This article was AfD-tagged on the talk page; I have moved the tag and reworked the original nomination page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Tyler Mitchell, to this page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would point out that the majority of sources cited here seem to only prove the existence of the artist and albums and not any notability thereof. Ducknish (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines seem to ask for the fact that supported sources be noted to denote coverage of the artist in question are provided by credible third party sources - the subject was given an editors pick in Downbeat magazine for his first CD as a Leader and the CD is on a highly respected NY label. He has received a Grammy nomination for his work - you are not going by the guidelines which ask for common sense to be used I feel - i can provide multiple pages on wikipedia that dont match the music noteriety standard you are asking for - again, you are not being objective in your reading of the guidelines i feel - which provide for artists like this one - you might not understand the importance of playing with Rashied Ali as well as more traditional artists - this is unfortunate if so. 24.228.254.55 (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: I have tried to read the guidelines. This says: General notability guideline Shortcuts: WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. In my opinion, A review in Downbeat magazine (The Leading Jazz magazine) for Mr Mitchell's own CD (an editor's pick no less), reviews in JazzTimes, The Chicago Reader (sources viewable here: http://www.tylermitchelljazz.com/contact.html) would be "significant coverage" "in (a) reliable sources" plus articles and interviews in AllAboutJazz (as referenced) 24.228.254.55 (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. While a lot of the sources cited in the article don't directly cover Mitchell, the All About Jazz interview gives him a lot of column-inches, and the DownBeat review, while short, shows attention. I think the best fate for this article right now is to keep it and work on improving it. If, in three to six months, the article hasn't improved, then I'd say a second AfD is in order. However, I think the article needs some time to develop (which it hadn't had before the AfD tag went up), and I think that enough claims of notability are made that the development can take place in the main article space. —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will gladly add more to this page - as there are more reviews and articles on Mr Mitchell - but I also think that the guidelines allow for artists such as Mr Mitchell who are 'unique' - in that they play in diverse (and often quite separate) aspects of american improvised music. Sometimes this topic isn't a subject of Jazz writing and criticism due to it's more obscure nature - but in reading the guidelines, they stress common sense and exceptions to a strict reading of what is "notable" be sometimes employed by editors. Given some time, the article will generally improve - but I have been spending most of my effort fending off deletion notices so unfort I havent had the time to actually improve the article itself - but this also leads me to a bit of a loss, if the wikipedia does not recognize a musician performing on Grammy nominated recordings as a level of notoriety (the top recognition given by the recording industry at present - in conjunction with press as listed in the article), what does it use to establish this standard? 24.228.254.55 (talk) 04:21, 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, czar ♔ 04:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The Grammy nomination gets him through WP:MUSIC. GoldenRing (talk) 12:25, 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three Twins[edit]

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

Small ice cream store chain in San Francisco. Asserted claim of notability is that it is the "first organic ice cream store chain in the US", which doesn't appear to me to be a claim of particular notability. The only two independent sources are the SF Business Journal (such journals often report on nonnotable businesses) and an article on the owner in the Cornell alumni magazine (the only source for the "first organic chain" claim. I don't think this satisfies WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They also distribute at least regionally. I've seen the product in stores, Fred Meyer (Kroger), I think, and perhaps even in Whole Foods. Just something to follow up on. There may be more sources--I haven't had a chance to investigate. Valfontis (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ I added a couple of better sources, from the San Francisco Chronicle and the Huffington Post. I think it might squeak through as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing "weak keep" to definite keep, thanks to the impressive sources found and added by Arxiloxos. Nice work. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the fact that it's got 4 shops, that it's organic, that is has national distrubition, and that we have some good sources covering it (even if some of them are local, regional, or university publications) together make it worth keeping. It's definitely not a strong case, but I think it's reasonable to think that people might want to know about this ice cream brand and that it's wortwhile to provide an entry on it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:01, 24 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, czar ♔ 04:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the "first organic chain" claim, but this is now a national brand that has received substantive coverage in significant non-Bay Area media such as The Wall Street Journal, CNNMoney, and Los Angeles Times (sources now added to the article). So I think the notability threshold is surpassed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Need more ice cream articles. --do ncr am 03:04, 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 redirect to Restart (Newsboys album). (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live with Abandon[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The song does not currently meet WP:NSONG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Restart (Newsboys album), the song's parent album. As a single by a notable group this is a plausible search term, but I'm not finding sufficient coverage to meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow talk 00:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 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, czar ♔ 04:33, 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. Does not meet WP:NFILM the panda ₯’ 20:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Grace and Rosie's Royal Adventure[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I can only argue for a redirect to The Ellen DeGeneres Show#Sophia Grace and Rosie; the product does exist, but the fact that the entire IMDB entry was filled in by "Sophia Grace & Rosie fan" fills me with dread that the only ones actually writing about this film anywhere online are WBHV's home video department. I wouldn't have any prejudice to keep if this article can be made neutral, though it really needs plenty of help to get there. Nate • (chatter) 15:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 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, czar ♔ 03:47, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Closing this as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination because neither of the keep !votes address the notability of the topic (e.g. with the provision of sources qualifying topic notability), which is the basis of the nomination. Regarding User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's !vote, while Savage Dragon appears to be notable, the notability of Freak Force itself remains unclear. Furthermore, the !vote by User:Crazy runner suggests potential notability, but doesn't qualify it. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Force[edit]

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

A non notable superhero team without third person sources to assert notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep w/o prejudice to a subsequent merger into a broader article when an appropriate one is created. "Savage Dragon" is a major comics franchise with a very large number of spinoff projects from its main title [11] (partial list), which are too extensive to cover in the article on the flagship title. Whether to cover these individually or in umbrella articles is an editorial decision, but wiping out existing coverage because it is woefully incomplete would be a bad choice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 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, czar ♔ 03:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Team with two eponymous comic book series. Work needs to be done on this article. --Crazy runner (talk) 07:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Era mio fratello[edit]

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

Unsourced, 2 episodes only. fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (media) Flat Out let's discuss it 02:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can figure out so far, it looks like it was a 2 episode miniseries event. No status on notability, but it looks like this was only planned for 2 episodes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for some help from WP:ITALY with looking for sources, as I'm not overly familiar with Italian language papers and the like. So far I've found this journal, which is published through Maney Publishing, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this link, the journal is peer-reviewed, so it's definitely a step in the right direction. I'm putting various links down at the bottom in the EL section, if anyone wants to take a look at them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources provided by me and by Tokyogirl79, article was unsourced but not unsourcable. As mentioned above, it was a 2-parts television film, which is way different from being a longer TV-series which is canceled after two episodes. --Cavarrone 07:14, 24 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, czar ♔ 03:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources added since it was nominated are enough to demonstrate a moderate level of notability; La Repubblica is a thoroughly reputable paper. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources added appear to reach WP:GNG --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:28, 7 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 05:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comintelli[edit]

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

promotional article for non-notable company. the article makes a good deal of the "promise award" -- but it's an award for potential, not accomplishments, the candidates can nominate themselves for it , and there are quite a number of finalists each year. The other awards are similar. At best, not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am finding only routine announcements for this firm (and for its previous name, "Comintell"). That leaves the question whether their repeat appearances on "promise and "trend-setter" lists at Knowledge Management World, and as one of seven firms with a 2010 award from Basex (whose site throws various 404s on "About Basex" etc) amounts to WP:CORPDEPTH notability; I would say they fall short. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 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, czar ♔ 03:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see some notability in the fact that the firm seems to be established. New is not the same as non-notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The AnalystTechnologies ref doesn't appear to meet RS, and the Social Information Group pdf is a deadlink, leaving only the minor awards, which are not sufficient to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:21, 5 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howie scream[edit]

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

This is an article about a stock scream sound effect less notable than the Wilhelm scream, created by a user now indef-blocked for long term abuse. Having pruned the unsourced and unreliable sourced content (the main source was formerly a Freewebs site), what we have is a "ten sound effects" list that says this is not even an official name for this sound effect. To use a term of art not so much seen on AfD these days, this is fancruft. A trivium that falls below the level of serious attention in reliable sources. It might mention a very short sentence in an article on stock sound effects, no more. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to be the second most famous movie scream and does have some other sources: News-Gazette (Illinois)[12], Vice[13], What Culture[14], Computer Music Guide[15] - but the latter in particular is possibly not a reliable source by our standards. Not quite sure that meets WP:GNG, and a merge somewhere would be nice, if possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Lekosky article provided by Colapeninsula is written by a guy who appears to be an expert in his field, and provides significant coverage of the subject. I'm not confident this is the most encyclopedic topic ever, but I think it squeaks by GNG. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 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, czar ♔ 03:37, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Legrand[edit]

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

Promotional article, poorly sourced and failing WP:BASIC. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this article's sourcing is not terrible, but it appears she is merely an officer of a small subsidiary of a larger firm. Her notability is far from clear. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. FWIW, I found very little about this woman at various Google searches, see here. Many links about about other women who had or have the same name; many other sources merely list her name and title(s). Here is a possibly reliable source. That's all I could find. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 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, czar ♔ 03:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A person with a job but no evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 05:42, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De'Jon Pier'e[edit]

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

Not notable according to WP:MUSICBIO, and no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Claim to notability is that he did well on iTunes charts and MySpace. Article has been up since June 2013: if this were new it would get speedied WP:CSD#A7. Ruby Murray 13:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 13:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 13:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

myspace information are true but Myspace has reformed so information might be difficult to retain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsessedauthour2012 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to have significant coverage in independent sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:09, 28 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, czar ♔ 03:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' I don't see coverage that gets us to WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article tells me it isn't notable by using web ephemera as references. I'm surprised facebook wasn't used as a reference everything else is there..... Szzuk (talk) 21:12, 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 delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 06:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damienn Jones[edit]

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

Contested CSD, notability concerns Tawker (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made this stub after seeing him mentioned on the Lil Flip article. I realize there's not quite enough info for this person for a full article, but I thought that was the point of a stub. Am I wrong? I don't have a ton of editing experience yet. In any case, I want to request that the stub be left up so that other editors can expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirCharlesofDriftwood (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft namespace or delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 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, czar ♔ 03:30, 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. ...without prejudice to the question of notability. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naim Label[edit]

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

No real evidence for notability. See WP:CORP. No reliable sources are cited. See WP:RS and WP:V. A Google search found large numbers of promotional hits and incidental mentions on blogs usually in articles about other topics, but failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. Thus article currently fails GNG, CORP and V. That's three strikes. Additionally article appears to be a WP:PROMO piece by a naked WP:COI. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no doubt that this label is notable and worthy of coverage. The present article however is completely unreferenced and has a promotional feel, so it may be better to delete it and for someone without the conflict of interest to start from scratch. --Deskford (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:56, 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, czar ♔ 03:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At AfD, when determining whether or not an article should be kept, one must also look at the salvageability of the article. All issues aside, it is sometimes best to just blow it up and start over. Here, I haven't looked into the notability of the subject too deeply yet, but with the absence of sources, the promotional tone, and the COI, this article appears to be unsalvageable in its current state. And per Deskford, the best course of action may be just to start from scratch. Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 6 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 No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaj Torp Larsen[edit]

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

There seems to be no significant coverage of this artist in any secondary sources besides the evidence provided that the albums do exist. He doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and the best source I can find actually talking about him specifically is about his minor involvement in the Skyfall theme, which would be better suited on the films own page (as stated on WP:BAND). Ducknish (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:53, 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, czar ♔ 03:27, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medio[edit]

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

non notable firm; the references are essentially press releases. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems to have reasonable amount of encyclopedic information attributable to RSs for a small company. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:28, 27 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, czar ♔ 03:26, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabella (company)[edit]

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

Promotional article for a company that has never yet produced a product. Only demos and press releases--and the refs, being essentially press releases, reflect that. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the tidal energy industry this company is fairly notable, in that it has large scale (1MW and 2MW devices in development, admittedly according to their own information). I found the article useful when researching the sector, I would not like to see it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.24.6 (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable company. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:54, 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, czar ♔ 03:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the sourcing that would show notability, but a note to 86.179... if you do see third-party sources about the company of the right type, we might be interested. I looked and I didn't, doing hte usual sources and Highbeam (the best hit for Highbeam was a passing ref at [16], the rest were largely routine patent application notices. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:22, 7 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 speedy deleted (A7). (non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 06:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald waywell[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines under WP:BIO. Google finds no substantive information about him not compiled by his son and grandson, with only 35 hits for the name overall. The article contains no references to supplement Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:58, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Etchegaray[edit]

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

Not tennis article. Wgolf (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry for the short intro-was getting tired of having to mark this guys articles like this. Anyway he made a lot of these not tennis guideline articles. Wgolf (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These articles should probably be lumped together as opposed to determining individually. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Collegiate coaches and players are not inherently notable per Project Tennis. A slew of these Cal State Fullerton persons were created in recent days including: Stan Kula, Ernest Becker, Bob Osborn, Steve White, Tom Ashley, Mark Kabacy, Brad Allen, Craig Neslage, and Neale R. Stoner. Perhaps more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Just being a college coach is not enough to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, fails WP:Tennis notability guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 13:04, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Osborn (Tennis)[edit]

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

Another not:tennis bio. Wgolf (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Collegiate coaches and players are not inherently notable per Project Tennis. A slew of these Cal State Fullerton persons were created in recent days including: Stan Kula, Ernest Becker, Craig Neslage, Steve White, Tom Ashley, Mark Kabacy, Brad Allen, Bill Etchegaray, and Neale R. Stoner. Perhaps more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Just being a college coach is not enough to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:14, 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 speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 06:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Perfetti[edit]

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

This appears to be a term paper pasted into Wikipedia. The content of the article is not about Perfetti per se, it's about his experiments. Perhaps he himself is notable per WP:GNG or WP:PROF, but this article does not demonstrate that. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of some sort. Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT regardless of whether Perfetti is notable. This is not useful as a biography of the subject and it would not help to move it to a different article title. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 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 Nomination withdrawn Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace mentoring[edit]

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

~~The term "workplace mentoring" does not appear to be a notable term. I'm not nominating it for A11 since it's not a made-up term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing per below. Thanks for those sources: could those be added to the article? I'm also not against merging this to mentoring since I don't really see much difference between it and just regular mentoring. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is quite notable as several books have been written about it such as Designing Workplace Mentoring Programs; Common-Sense Workplace Mentoring; Workplace Mentoring Reference Guide; Workplace Mentoring: Organising and Managing Effective Practice; &c. We have a more general start on the topic at mentoring too and so there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger. Andrew (talk) 09:22, 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.